Income planning case studies

Let’s walk through two fictitious clients, Jane and Steve. Both are 65, and have $300,000 in their RRSPs. Both have the same asset mix: 50/50 equities and fixed income.

Jane does not need to draw from her savings. Her CPP, OAS and company pension pay her enough retirement income. Her RRSP savings are only required to pay her travel expenses to warmer locales for a few weeks during the winter. She considers this non-essential, and she only needs $4,000 a year for that.

On the other hand, Steve has no company pension. After doing his budget, Steve says he needs to pull $15,000 a year from his savings, indexed to inflation.

Let’s first look at Jane’s case. Her withdrawals from her savings are discretionary. Because she does not depend on this money, there is no need to allocate any of her RRSP savings to a life annuity or a variable annuity with guaranteed lifelong income. That would be waste of her resources. She will convert her RRSP into a RRIF at age 71, the maximum age for this conversion.

The chart below shows all historical outcomes, if Jane were to retire in any of the years since 1919, when the S&P/TSX equity index began. This is called an “aftcast,” as opposed to a forecast with deterministic projections (“assume 8% average growth rate, 3% inflation”), or a Monte Carlo simulation (“assume 8% average growth rate with 20% standard deviation, run ten thousand times”). The aftcast does not assume anything; it just shows the market history for a particular client-specific case.

The aftcast indicates that Jane’s RRIF portfolio is more than enough to cover her travel expenses. After age 71, the RRIF minimum payments are a lot higher than what she needs. So, she takes out the minimum, pays income tax on that and then saves any remaining money. Let’s move on to Steve’s case. His aftcast (see graph below) does not look so good. History shows that there is a 72% chance that his RRIF portfolio would run out of money by age 95. This is totally unacceptable; it is way over 10%!

So, Steve needs to export his longevity, market risks and inflation risks to an insurance company. The only purpose of an insurance company is to minimize the risk for its clients. So, Steve should look for insurance providers with a solid track record in risk management and he should avoid those that take higher risks with the sole purpose of improving their bottom line.

A life annuity costs $285,000. It pays him $15,000 annually for life, indexed to actual CPI each year, with a minimum 15-year guarantee period, should he die prematurely. Steve has $15,000 left in his RRSP. He does not need any income from that. He converts it to a RRIF at age 71. Income from this RRIF can be used for extra expenses, or saved for a rainy day.

Steve asks about the variable annuities with guaranteed withdrawals for life. Variable annuities convert the longevity and market risks into the inflation risk. Even though sales brochures describe how the annual income might increase if markets do well, the market history shows that there is only a 17% chance that payments will maintain the purchasing power. Anyone who purchased such products during the last five years will likely see no increase whatsoever for the rest of their lives. The chart below shows the aftcast for a variable annuity.

In conclusion, when it comes to retirement planning, there is no such a thing as allocating “rule of thumb” percentages to different income classes. Leave that cookie-cutter type of claptrap to academics. Each client is different, each scenario is different, each solution is unique and this is our purpose as financial planners. We were able to find solutions for both Jane and Steve in their quest for lifelong income with minimum ongoing risk. Our foremost duty to our clients is not selling dreams, but preventing nightmares during their senior years.