The Retiree Whose Questionnaire Said 'Aggressive'
Meera, 62, is a retired school principal in Pune. Her investible corpus is Rs 72 lakh from gratuity, PF and savings. Her husband's pension of Rs 18,000 a month covers routine household expenses, but she needs a further Rs 25,000 a month from the corpus for at least 25 years. Her present holdings are Rs 48 lakh across five small-cap and mid-cap equity funds bought in 2021-22, Rs 12 lakh in a three-year fixed deposit of a single NBFC paying 8.75%, Rs 8 lakh in a savings account and Rs 4 lakh in a ULIP. Her adviser uses a 12-question risk questionnaire that focuses on return expectations, past loss tolerance and self-rated experience; she scores 68 out of 100, which the template labels 'Aggressive'. He drafts a plan with 70% equity and tells her the corpus will comfortably generate the income. The small-cap funds are down about 18% from cost, the NBFC's rating has just been downgraded, and that deposit matures in eight months. She has no health insurance beyond an employer scheme that ended on retirement.
1. Is the 'Aggressive' score an adequate basis for a 70% equity allocation? Set out what the adviser must examine before deciding the equity level.
Read the worked answer
No. The score measures risk attitude (willingness), not risk capacity (ability). A suitability decision requires both, plus the need to take risk.
Examine:
- Cash-flow requirement. Rs 25,000 a month is Rs 3 lakh a year, a withdrawal rate of about 4.2% of Rs 72 lakh, and that is before inflation. A 70% equity portfolio can fall 30-40% in a year; withdrawing from a portfolio during a drawdown converts a temporary loss into a permanent one.
- Horizon and sequencing. Money needed in years 1-5 must not sit in small-caps. Small-cap funds are also the wrong instrument for a retiree: high volatility, poor liquidity in stress and long drawdowns.
- Concentration and credit risk. Rs 12 lakh, 17% of the corpus, in a single NBFC that has just been downgraded is a capacity problem, not an attitude problem.
- Insurance and liquidity. No health cover after retirement means a hospital bill could force a sale of assets at the worst time. An emergency reserve of 12-18 months of expenses is a precondition, not an optional extra.
- Questionnaire design. A template built on return expectations and past experience will systematically over-score anyone who has only seen a bull market. It should include income stability, dependants, liabilities, liquidity needs, loss-bearing capacity in rupee terms and behaviour in the 2008 and 2020 drawdowns.
Conclusion: attitude says 'aggressive', capacity says 'moderate at most'. Document the questionnaire, but override it with reasons and record the override.
2. Assuming inflation of 6% and a 25-year income need, is the 4.2% withdrawal rate sustainable? What structure would you propose and how would you explain the trade-off?
Read the worked answer
A 4.2% withdrawal rate that must itself rise with inflation is aggressive for a 25-year horizon. The withdrawal is Rs 3 lakh in year 1, but at 6% inflation it becomes roughly Rs 5.4 lakh in year 10 and Rs 9.6 lakh in year 20. Total withdrawals over 25 years at that escalating rate are far more than half the corpus, so the portfolio must earn a real return, not merely preserve nominal capital.
A workable structure is a bucket approach:
- Bucket 1 (years 1-3): about Rs 11-12 lakh in a liquid fund, short-duration debt fund and a ladder of bank FDs to fund the first three years of withdrawals. This removes any need to sell equity in a falling market.
- Bucket 2 (years 4-10): about Rs 22-25 lakh in short-to-medium duration debt and a senior citizens' savings scheme or annuity for a predictable floor.
- Bucket 3 (years 11+): the balance, roughly Rs 35 lakh, in a diversified large-cap/index core with a limited mid-cap satellite, funded by SIP or staggered entry rather than a lump sum.
Explain the trade-off honestly: the equity bucket is what defends purchasing power over 25 years; the debt bucket is what protects against the sequence-of-returns risk. Quote a range of outcomes, not a single number, and state that returns are not assured. The current small-cap holdings should be transitioned in tranches with capital-gains impact reviewed, and no more than a token allocation retained.
3. Two months later she says: 'Sell everything and put it all in the 8.75% fixed deposit.' How should the adviser respond?
Read the worked answer
Take the fear seriously rather than arguing. The plan she is being sold is not risk-free; it swaps market risk for credit, inflation, reinvestment and concentration risk, all at once.
Reasoning to present:
- Credit concentration. 100% of a lifetime corpus in one NBFC at 8.75%, after that issuer's rating downgrade, is far riskier than a diversified portfolio. Deposits are unsecured obligations of the company; the 0.75-1% extra yield does not compensate for the loss of principal if the issuer fails.
- Inflation. At 6% inflation, 8.75% pre-tax leaves roughly 2.5% real before tax; if her slab rate is 20-30%, the real return is close to zero or negative. Over 25 years that quietly erodes the corpus while it looks safe.
- Reinvestment risk. The rate is locked for three years only; if rates fall, her entire income base resets lower.
- It does not solve the actual worry. Her real fear is a falling portfolio while she is drawing from it. The bucket structure is the answer: a predictable 3-year cash ladder plus an annuity floor, so she never has to sell equity in a bad month.
Then act: offer to reduce equity to the level she can live with (say 30-35%), show the income plan in rupee terms rather than percentages, put the revised plan and her concerns in writing, and give her a week to decide. If she still insists on a single-issuer deposit, cap it to the insured/diversified portion and obtain a written acknowledgement rather than simply executing the instruction.