Sequence Risk, Buckets, and Longevity Insurance at Retirement
At 64, Priya plans to retire in 12 months. Her $1.4 million portfolio is 70% global equities, 25% investment-grade bonds, and 5% cash. She has a $38,000 annual pension with no COLA, will claim Social Security at 67 (estimated $34,000), and projects $95,000 of annual spending. Last year her bond fund fell 13%, and she now wants to raise equities to 80% 'to recover losses.' She has no long-term-care insurance and a family history of longevity. Her risk-tolerance questionnaire score is moderate, but she says she can handle volatility. She asks whether to delay Social Security to 70, use a bucket strategy, or buy an annuity with $300,000 of the portfolio.
1. Distinguish Priya's risk capacity from her risk tolerance and recommend an appropriate portfolio policy given her retirement timing.
Read the worked answer
Risk tolerance is her willingness to endure volatility; risk capacity is her ability to absorb a shortfall without changing her lifestyle. Her capacity is constrained: retirement is 12 months away, spending is $95,000, the pension is $38,000 with no COLA, Social Security at 67 is $34,000, and she has no long-term-care insurance. At 67, pension and Social Security cover $72,000, leaving a $23,000 gap before taxes and inflation; the portfolio must also fund the pre-67 gap and 30 years of longevity.
A 70% equity portfolio already carries substantial growth exposure. Raising it to 80% after a bond loss is return-chasing and would increase sequence-of-returns risk at the worst possible time. The policy portfolio should be set by capacity, not by last year's performance-likely 50–60% equities with high-quality bonds and a cash reserve, plus a written rebalancing rule. Her moderate questionnaire score supports that range. The planner should run a bad-first-five-years scenario and show her the funded ratio. If she wants more growth, the safer lever is to delay Social Security or reduce spending, not to concentrate more in equities.
2. Evaluate a bucket strategy versus a total-return rebalancing approach for funding her first five retirement years.
Read the worked answer
A bucket strategy can be a useful behavioral overlay if it is implemented inside the asset allocation, not as an excuse to hold 80% equities. A two-year cash and bond ladder for the spending gap-roughly $50,000–$60,000 per year before Social Security-would cover the pre-67 period without forced equity sales in a downturn. The total-return approach is more efficient: hold the policy allocation, rebalance annually, and sell from the overweight asset.
The danger is that a 'growth bucket' gets labeled 'do not touch' and the overall portfolio drifts to 80% equity. The planner should define buckets by time horizon but report one consolidated allocation and rebalance across buckets. Guardrails-such as cutting spending if the portfolio falls below a threshold-address the same risk more directly than a rigid bucket structure. Recommend a cash reserve of 12–24 months of the net spending gap, not a wholesale shift to equities. The bucket is a communication tool, not an asset allocation strategy.
3. Assess the annuity purchase and Social Security delay as longevity-risk tools, including liquidity and inflation trade-offs.
Read the worked answer
Delaying Social Security to 70 is attractive longevity insurance: it is inflation-adjusted, lasts for life, and provides a larger survivor benefit. If her benefit at 67 is $34,000, waiting to 70 could raise it by roughly 24% plus COLAs. She can bridge the gap with the portfolio and pension.
A $300,000 immediate annuity might pay 5–6%, but most quotes are level, not inflation-adjusted, and the purchase is irreversible. It reduces liquidity and may duplicate the pension. A better sequence is to delay Social Security, preserve a partial annuity option for later, and use a prudent withdrawal rate. If she buys an annuity, consider a CPI-adjusted or graded payout and keep a cash reserve for unexpected health costs. The decision should be stress-tested against living to 95 and against an early death, because the value of the annuity and the survivor benefit depend heavily on longevity. The planner should also address long-term-care funding separately rather than relying on the annuity.