What to know about investment risk in the early years of retirement

  • Learn about the relationship between risk and retirement and how that has changed with pension freedoms.
  • Understand why retirees tend to be risk averse and how this can be overcome.
  • Grasp what the FCA concluded about risk and how advisers can incorporate this into the advice process.
  • Learn about the relationship between risk and retirement and how that has changed with pension freedoms.
  • Understand why retirees tend to be risk averse and how this can be overcome.
  • Grasp what the FCA concluded about risk and how advisers can incorporate this into the advice process.
pfs-logo
cisi-logo
CPD
Approx.30min
pfs-logo
cisi-logo
CPD
Approx.30min
twitter-iconfacebook-iconlinkedin-iconmail-iconprint-icon
Search supported by
pfs-logo
cisi-logo
CPD
Approx.30min
What to know about investment risk in the early years of retirement

In his landmark 2012 paper, The Glidepath Illusion, Mr Arnott simulated the performance of three distinct retirement strategies on the basis of more than 140 years of historical returns. 

He offered three characters on the ‘glidepath’ to retirement – Prudent Poly, whose stock-bond allocation progressively moves from 80-20 to 20-80; Balanced Burt, whose stock-bond allocation is rebalanced annually to a static 50-50; and Contrary Connie, whose stock-bond allocation progressively moves from 20-80 to 80-20.

According to Mr Arnott, assuming an annual investment of $1,000 (£784.70) over 40 years, on average, Polly could expect to enter retirement with around $124,000, Burt with $138,000 and Connie with $152,000. 

Crucially, the worst case scenarios showed a similar pattern.

In the worst outcomes experienced over 140 years of historic returns Polly would end her working life with just $50,000, Burt with $52,000 and Connie with $53,000.

Many others have corroborated this research. In 2017, I carried out a similar study to explore how far retirement savings might last in a range of scenarios. 

In this study, two investors (and admittedly this is not a hard luck tale – these would be high-net-worth individuals) save an average of £20,000 a year from the age of 30 to 60, retire and then set about withdrawing an annual pension of £60,000 a year.

But having also modelled much more modest scenarios, the conclusions drawn below in terms of the risk reward trade-off are consistent whether you save £20,000 or £2,000, and draw £60,000 or £6,000.

One invests throughout in a moderately cautious portfolio generating 4 per cent per annum on average (after advisory fees and miscellaneous costs), the second targets 5 per cent per annum through a balanced portfolio.

The cautious investor runs out of money at nearly 86, by which point the balanced investor still has £800,000 in savings. 

The comforting conclusion is that it only takes a modest increase in risk to generate significantly better returns.

This was a simple model – it assumed the portfolios were kicking out exactly 4 per cent and 5 per cent a year.

Not very realistic, you might argue.

Subjecting them to the vicissitudes of normal markets using real-life market data that included the market crash of 2008 to 2009 aimed to address that issue. 

Taking a ‘bad’ scenario (on a scale of one to 100 of outcomes, where one was the best and 100 was the worst, this was number 80 on the scale), the cautious investor ran out of cash at around 80; the balanced investor ran out of money at 84.

Caution still did not pay. 

PAGE 2 OF 5