Retirement Income, Inflation, and a Drawdown-Averse Couple
Mr. and Mrs. Cheung, both 64, are retiring next month with a lump sum of USD 1.5 million from a defined-contribution plan. They need USD 60,000 in the first year, rising with inflation, and want the money to last to age 95. Their current allocation is 70% cash and 30% global bond fund. They say they cannot tolerate a drawdown greater than 10% and refuse to consider annuities because 'the insurer might go bust'. Inflation is 3%. A 30-year bond ladder yields about 4.2%; a diversified 60/40 portfolio has an expected return of 6% with volatility of 10%; a TIPS ladder could fund real spending but yields 1.8% real. They have no other assets besides a small apartment and a family history of longevity. They ask for a 'safe' portfolio that still grows.
1. Identify the conflicts among the clients' objectives and constraints.
Read the worked answer
The clients' goals are internally inconsistent:
- Income versus safety: USD 60,000 on USD 1.5 million is a 4% initial withdrawal rate, rising 3% a year. A cash-and-bond portfolio may preserve nominal value but lose purchasing power; a growth portfolio may sustain withdrawals but can breach their 10% drawdown limit.
- Longevity versus drawdown tolerance: a 30-year horizon to age 95 requires growth and inflation protection, yet their stated loss limit is very low. A 60/40 portfolio with 10% volatility can easily lose more than 10% in a bad year.
- Annuity aversion versus lifetime income: they reject annuities for insurer-credit reasons but then have no guaranteed lifetime floor. That increases the risk that they underspend or run out of money.
- Cash drag: 70% cash earning little is a guaranteed real loss at 3% inflation.
The adviser should quantify these trade-offs rather than accept the word 'safe' at face value.
2. Compare at least two strategies and recommend an approach with reasoning.
Read the worked answer
Two workable strategies are:
- TIPS ladder for essential spending: a 30-year real ladder at 1.8% real could fund the USD 60,000 real spending stream, but it would consume most of the capital and leave little growth or liquidity. It provides inflation protection and a predictable floor but may be too rigid.
- 60/40 portfolio with a cash bucket: expected return of 6% is more likely to sustain 30 years of withdrawals, but volatility of 10% means drawdowns above their 10% limit are likely. A two-year cash bucket can reduce forced selling in a downturn, but it does not remove the risk.
A reasonable recommendation is a hybrid: use a TIPS or bond ladder to cover essential spending for the first 10-15 years, and invest the remainder in a diversified 40/60 or 50/50 portfolio for growth and later years. This creates a guaranteed floor, reduces sequence-of-returns risk, and gives some inflation protection without pretending the portfolio is risk-free. The clients should understand that 'safe' here means funding essentials, not avoiding all market fluctuation.