USAA: seven money rules to break

A few weeks ago USAA article posted an article on when to break the “money rules”. Here’s the summary, with my comments in italics:

1. Pay off debt and build an emergency fund before saving for retirement …
… except when your debt is of the low-rate, tax-reducing variety, such as a mortgage or student loans, and your retirement plan at work offers an employer match for your contributions.

(And if you’re on active duty then the emergency fund can be as small as a month or two of pay.  You have a steady paycheck and your command could let you tap advance pay in unusual circumstances.)

2. Save 10% of your income …
… except when you’re getting a late start.

(Then save a lot more. Compound interest is only magical if you get an early start. )

3. Always max out your employer-sponsored account …
… except when you may be able to create a better tax-management plan.

(Of course if you’re on active duty or in federal civil service then you’re going to max out the Thrift Savings Plan.  But sometimes regular 401(k) fund expenses are so high that, once you’ve maxed the employer’s 401(k) match, it makes more sense to move on to a Roth IRA or your taxable accounts.)

4. Send your kid to college — it’s a great investment …
… except when it places an extreme burden on your finances.

(More on the hot college topic at this post. )

5. Buy a house if it costs 2.5 times your annual income or less …
… except when it doesn’t suit your circumstances.

(If you’re on active duty then you’re probably transferring too often to buy a house.  Even if you plan to stay in an area for a number of years, your market might be soft for many months to come. Don’t rush into a “bargain” if prices are still dropping.)

(The “2.5 x annual income” thumbrule isn’t very helpful either, if you expect your income to rise over the years or if you’re leaving the military soon. Another rule of thumb is to limit your mortgage debt payment to roughly 28% of your take-home pay. A third rule of thumb is to limit your “non-discretionary” expenses– including mortgage payments, insurance, and all other debt– to no more than half of your take-home pay. The best rule of all, however, is to buy real estate only when your long-term prospects make it cheaper than renting.)

6. An annuity might not be right for you …
… except when it fits into your plan.

(If you’re retired military then you probably don’t need more annuities.  Your military pension is the best annuity that money can buy. Even if you don’t have a military pension, you can purchase a very affordable annuity through the Thrift Savings Plan. )

7. When you retire, consider a withdrawal of 4% of your portfolio, then adjust every year for inflation …
… except when the timing isn’t right.

(The 4% website calculators don’t do a good job of handling variable withdrawal rates. Almost all failures of the 4% withdrawal scheme occur when the portfolio suffers severe losses during the first few years of retirement. However humans tend to tighten their spending when the market goes down, and you can do this whenever you’re not comfortable spending your yearly amount. Another option is Bob Clyatt’s variable withdrawal plan of 4%/95%.  When you reduce your withdrawals during down years, your portfolio will be able to recover that much more quickly from a bear market.)

What other “money rules” do you break when it makes sense?

Related articles:
Where to put your savings while you’re in the military
How many years does it take to become financially independent?
Early retirement and the kid’s college fund
Real estate– rent or buy?
Asset allocation considerations for a military pension
TSP annuity options
Back to the Trinity Study

Does this post help? Sign up for more free military retirement tips via e-mail, Facebook, or Twitter!

Back to the Trinity Study

Today’s post will be a sensuous reading experience that only a financial planner or an economist could love.

If you’re just getting started on your own finances then you probably want to skip this post (!) in favor of reading the “Armed Forces Guide to Personal Financial Planning”, or “The Military Advantage”, or another book from the Recommended Reading list. At best this post will seem boring, at worst it’ll be intimidating.

But if you’ve been reading the research papers for a few years and you’re skeptical about the 4% Safe Withdrawal Rate, then here’s more research to feast upon. Don’t worry, the 4% SWR still seems to be a good number.

First on the list is a 2010 review and update of the original 1998 Trinity Study by its original authors. Their conclusion is that a success rate of 75% is more than enough if you’re willing to watch your portfolio and make mid-course corrections. They agree that retiring into a recession is more likely to need those corrections, but if there’s not a bear market within the first few years of ER then the portfolio should survive on autopilot.

They even go so far as to suggest that 4% is the low end of an inflation-adjusted SWR, and that a fixed rate of 7% (no increases for inflation during retirement, ever) will also work. They’ve limited their study to 30 years, though, so keep in mind the effects of inflation for longer than 30 years.

Financial planners (and most military) would point out that a 75% success rate is guaranteed to be a 25% failure rate. In combat, let alone retirement planning, 25% is usually considered unacceptable. However one of my favorite financial authors, Yogi Berra William Bernstein, has pointed out that predicting the future is notoriously difficult. He claims that any portfolio success rate higher than 80% for 40 years is meaningless, and seeking a false sense of security can prolong one’s workforce misery.

One of my favorite case studies is famed early retiree Raddr’s profile of the hapless “Y2K ER”. This hypothetical fearless (and oblivious) ER (Y2K, not Raddr!) left the workforce at the end of 1999 to enjoy a 4% SWR on a portfolio flush with the outsize returns of nearly two decades of bull markets. By 2005, after five years of blissfully raising his annual withdrawals for inflation, the warning lights were beginning to flash. By 2011 his actual withdrawal rate is approaching 10%, and even the stock market’s latest recovery may not be enough to save him.

Yet nobody would persist in such reckless spending behavior. Even if Y2K ER had held out until his spending reached 7% of that year’s portfolio value, he would have started to cut expenses or found part-time work. His apparently inevitable demise is a clear example of how human behavior differs from the computer studies.

Incidentally Raddr’s website has a number of computer simulations of withdrawal rates which also conclude that 4% is challenging but not unrealistic. His studies unearthed plenty of failures but he also clearly demonstrates the difficulty of forecasting five decades of returns from history or Monte Carlo simulations. Once we humans are aware of the hazards then we’re probably sufficiently vigilant and flexible to steer around them.

One example of that vigilance and flexibility is Bob Clyatt’s “4%/95%” approach from the book “Work Less, Live More”.  Bob’s system is one of the very few “variable withdrawal rate” approaches to retirement spending.  It looks at the portfolio every year and takes a straight 4%– no adjustment for inflation because the 4% is calculated at the beginning of every year.  As you can imagine, this method is wildly popular if the stock market’s rise exceeds inflation.  It’s not so cheery if the market is flat and inflation is rising.  Even worse, spending has to be cut when a bear market inevitably rears its fanged head– which is where the “95%” kicks in.  If next year’s 4% calculation is less than 95% of this year’s 4% calculation, then next year the ER has the option to take 95% of this year’s 4%.  This is a temporarily higher withdrawal rate, but it still temporarily reduces spending to minimize damage to the portfolio.  As the bear market ends and the portfolio recovers, ER spending can rise right along with it at the next 4% calculation.

In other words, when the market drops by more than 5% then your spending only has to drop a maximum of 5%.  This allows a lot of flexibility for bear markets like the Great Recession, where the 2008 S&P500 dropped 37%.

An intriguing study takes a different approach to “failure”. Instead of agonizing over the “right” success rate, it attempts to avoid failures just before they happen.  ERs check their portfolio each year and only start to worry if it begins to steadily decline. Then they start tracking the price of an annuity that would provide enough income for the rest of their lives– either a fixed annuity that they’ll be able to live within (despite inflation) or an annuity with a cost-of-living adjustment for inflation. If their portfolio shrinks to the cost of their chosen annuities then they declare “game over” and annuitize their income for the rest of their lives. This is similar to Otar’s approach of buying a ladder of single-premium immediate annuities when a retirement portfolio seems likely to fail.

Bottom line? The academic financial research peer-review process has produced a pile of studies that hover around the 4% consensus. No one can predict the future with 100% success, but 4% seems to be what fiduciaries call a “prudent risk”. The key is your own attitude. When your portfolio is big enough to apply the 4% SWR to your budget and declare your financial independence, then you have choices.

One financially independent choice is to keep working until you’ve had enough: the “you will know when it’s time to go” approach. (Caution: anecdotal evidence indicates that when you’re financially independent, the “had enough” part happens a lot faster than you might expect.) If you aggressively save and invest during your military career, then you can achieve this within 10 years– especially with a military retirement from active duty or the Reserves/Guard.

Another choice would be to keep working until your SWR is below the dividend yield of your portfolio, so that you’re unlikely to ever have to chew into the principal. (Your heirs & beneficiaries will certainly appreciate this approach, too.) It will eventually become a trade-off between your emotional security and your tolerance for the workplace. I hope that you’ll find an avocation you love, but even the “dream job” has plenty of unrelated dissatisfiers that will truly test your commitment to showing up for work. Especially if the surf is up.

A third choice is to race for the workplace exit, intending to take an “extended sabbatical” to decide what you’d like to do with the rest of your life. If you’ve stuck with your financial and emotional retirement planning then you know how to entertain yourself for the rest of your life without spending into bankruptcy. SWR studies are very conservative and make the general simplifying assumption that you’re not going to change your spending behavior. However you know that you’re going to check your spending over the years. It’s human nature to either cut back your spending during recessions, or to use the “fire sale” opportunity to buy bargain-priced assets. Either way you’ll enhance your portfolio’s returns (and its survivability), which is a type of behavior that’s very difficult to model on a computer for a research paper.

If you’re still skeptical that there’s anything truly “safe” about predicting withdrawal rates (after all, you’re the one who has to live with the results), then you can always default to Bud Hebeler’s “Analyze Now!” negative-feedback system.  It’s more work, it’s much more conservative, and your spending limits may chafe on you from one year to the next, but Bud is an aviator who takes comfort from knowing that you’ll always have your hands on the controls.

What about you? If you’ve been retired for a few years, have you had to modify your spending or your withdrawal rate?

Related articles:
Military retirement spending: how much will I need?
Military retirement: how much can I really spend?
How many years does it take to become financially independent?
Tailor your investments to your military pay and your pension
Asset allocation considerations for a military pension

Does this post help? Sign up for more free military retirement tips via e-mail, Facebook, or Twitter!

“Present value” estimate of a military pension


(For those of you who follow the stock market’s performance, the inspiration for this post came two years ago: March 2009, the bottom of the Great Recession’s markets. Back then I had no clue that someday I’d be blogging about it.)

How much is a military pension worth?

The answer is more than just cash flow. Another way to ask the question is: How much is that pension worth as a lump sum?

Humans aren’t very good at estimating income or inflation adjustments, and emotions always influence our otherwise logical financial decisions. Unfortunately an investment that looks like a great deal in a glossy magazine ad can turn out to be “great” only for the seller. A very effective way to analyze a pension’s value is to put the numbers in terms of both the pension’s monthly cash flow and its lump-sum equivalent.

The answer’s format can change a veteran’s decision. The Department of Defense still offers a REDUX Career Status Bonus because many military members (and their families) are tempted by a “big” number like $30,000. But an earlier post showed that the CSB is usually only a good deal for the DoD.

At first a military pension doesn’t seem to be worth very much. Even a relatively large pension of $3000/month is only about $100/day. A soldier just ending their 10th year of service might not be very motivated by the thought that they’ll have to work another 10 years for that guaranteed cash flow of inflation-protected income. Emotionally, $100/day just doesn’t seem worth the sacrifice– even though the payout rises with inflation for the rest of their life.

The challenge behind analyzing a lump-sum question is to figure out how much money has to be invested to yield the pension’s stream of income. One challenge to the analysis is that the military pension includes a cost of living adjustment, so the amount of the income stream has to rise every year by the rate of inflation. Another problem is that no one knows how long the pensioner will live, so it’s difficult to predict how long the pension will be paid out. Finally, the calculated lump sum has to be invested in a safe and stable asset to make sure that it survives for decades. Unfortunately the safe and stable assets have a very low yield, so it takes a larger lump sum to produce an income stream big enough to pay the pension.

The answer to these puzzles involves the mathematical process of “discounting”. Accountants and actuaries devote entire careers to studying asset yields, human longevity, and other risks. They calculate the statistical probability that a certain lump sum will be able to pay a particular pension for the necessary number of years. The good news for pension recipients is that the calculations are much more accurate when the analysis is simultaneously applied to hundreds of thousands of pensions as a group. Even better, the Department of Defense can rely on the number-crunching skills of another giant bureaucracy of inflation-adjusted payments: Social Security.

The mathematical details of discounting an inflation-adjusted annuity are well beyond the scope of this post. There’s not an easy formula to convert that $100/day pension to a precise lump sum. However there are a few simpler estimates that are reasonably close to the more complicated methods.

The easiest estimate assumes that a military pension keeps up with inflation. This eliminates the more complicated factors of correcting future dollars for inflation. If a military pension keeps up with inflation then the pension’s value in today’s dollars stays constant. The lump-sum value of the pension is the total amount to be received during the rest of the veteran’s life:

  • Lump sum = (annual pension amount) * (remaining life expectancy)

A 38-year-old veteran receiving $3000/month with a COLA might reasonably look forward to 35 more years of life. The estimate of the present value of their pension would be

  • Lump sum = ($3000/month) * (12 months/year) * (35 years) = $1,260,000.

The life-expectancy estimate ignores other discounting factors in favor of simplicity and speed. Its main advantage is that a veteran can quickly estimate a lump sum for their own personal expected lifespan. Veterans in good health with long-lived ancestors may decide that they have 40 or even 50 years of retirement, raising the current value of their pension.

Another quick estimate is to assume that the pension is the income stream from a lump sum of Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS). TIPS are an extremely safe and stable asset with built-in inflation protection. The market for buying and selling TIPS is huge and liquid so their prices are fairly accurate. One flaw of this estimate is that, unlike a military pension, when the pensioner dies there’s still a lump sum of TIPS generating a stream of income. Another drawback is that a TIPS’ maturity (now a maximum of 30 years) is usually less than the pensioner’s remaining life expectancy. The advantage of this estimate is simplicity and speed:

  • Lump sum = (annual pension) / (TIPS annual percentage yield)

A January 2009 Treasury auction sold 20-year TIPS at an inflation-adjusted annual percentage yield of 2.5%. So for that $3000/month pension,

  • Lump sum = ($3000/month) * (12 months/year) / (.025/year) = $1,440,000.

Another estimate of the lump-sum value of an inflation-adjusted pension is a commercial annuity. The annuity market is generally regarded as liquid because insurance companies compete to offer the “best” price without losing money. However they still charge more than the actual value of the annuity to make their profit. Insurance companies could be unable to make annuity payments or even go bankrupt and should be considered a riskier source of annuity payments than TIPS or other government bonds.

One of the “less risky” annuities comes from an agency sponsored by the federal government– the Thrift Savings Plan. TSP annuities are actually purchased from an insurance company and are not guaranteed by the federal government, but the insurance company is presumably charging a smaller fee (to sell a large volume of annuities) and the annuity’s cost would be closer to its value.

TSP annuities are priced each month and do not offer full protection against inflation. The advantage of estimating a pension’s lump-sum value from a TSP annuity is its lower price and the TSP website’s calculator.  Assuming that the $3000/month pension is paid to a 38-year-old veteran and limited to 3% annual inflation:

  • Lump sum (TSP website annuity calculator) = $1.4 million.

$1.4 million is the price that a veteran would pay in the market to buy a TIPS portfolio or an annuity that would yield their inflation-adjusted pension of $3000/month for the rest of their life. Other research analyzes the theoretical cost of annuities and discounted values– only the cost and not its market price.  (This includes a research paper on military pensions– the citation is in the book.)  These estimates range from about $1 million to $1.2 million. They’re only theoretical estimates. These annuities can’t actually be purchased like the assets of the other estimates, but they’re a more conservative estimate of the probabilities of longevity and other risk factors.

Let’s get back to the veteran who’s just finished 10 years of service and is wondering if it’s worth staying in the military for another decade. After an analysis of the pension’s present value, which sounds more compelling now: $100/day, or lifetime income of over $1 million?

Related articles:
Retired Pay Differences Rise
Does military service still pay?
Military retired pay calculator
Military pension inflation protection
TIPS and I bonds for military retirement?

Does this post help? Sign up for more free military retirement tips via e-mail, Facebook, or Twitter!

Tailor your investments to your military pay and your pension

 

Moshe Milevsky’s book “Are You a Stock or a Bond?” suggests that military on active duty can invest much more aggressively than many civilians. Milevsky’s concept of “human capital” grew out of his studies of investment and retirement plans. He noted that every worker has the lifetime potential to earn different amounts of money, with varying degrees of reliability and predictability, depending on their potential occupations. Some careers had a high degree of continuous employment and steady income. Civil servants and university professors could all be expected to have relatively steady jobs which, while not paying large salaries, would earn a decent income with good retirement benefits. The modest yet predictable nature of their income was like a bond.

Other occupations, like Wall Street financier or professional sports, could generate huge payoffs in bonuses or options– but their likelihood of employment and the reliability of their income could be volatile. They could be laid off during any recession or a single injury could end their career. Although they would probably earn a much bigger total than more steadily-employed professions, their income was not predictable and they might even have to arrange for their own retirements with tax-deferred savings and annuities. The wild swings of their employment and their income resembled a penny stock.

A military member’s “human capital” has the potential to earn millions of dollars over the years between school and retirement. With every paycheck their years of training, skills, and experience are converted to investment dollars plus retirement and healthcare benefits. Even in a combat zone their pay, benefits, and insurance rise to cover the higher possibility of injury or death.  The military’s reliable predictability of employment is the equivalent of a steady stream of high-quality income. It’s as good as a portfolio of government bonds.

When you’re on active duty you’ll enjoy a steady stream of largely predictable income. According to Milevsky, the asset allocation of your investment portfolio can shift to stocks because your human capital already resembles bonds. You’ll still need an emergency fund and you’ll still want to save for specific goals like buying a home, but you don’t need to allocate much money to low-volatility assets like bonds or Treasuries or CDs. As long as you’re on active duty or drilling for Reserves/National Guard pay then you can take extra risks with your investments for an extra 1% of returns.

If you’re saving military paychecks for retirement, or if you’re retired on a military pension, then you can take extra investing risks! The income stream of your pension is based on one of the world’s highest-quality annuities resembling a portfolio of inflation-adjusted bonds or Treasuries. If you had to buy these bonds to produce the income stream of your pension, it’s possible that their value would be greater the rest of your savings. In that case the majority of your overall investment portfolio, including both your pension and your other assets, would be its bond component. Offset that bond allocation by investing the rest of your portfolio in larger portions of equities and real estate. The compounded extra return over 20 years will greatly increase your portfolio and speed your retirement.

The challenge of this financial analysis is its emotional turbulence. While your high-equity portfolio will earn a greater long-term return, it has much higher short-term volatility. If you can sleep at night despite a -25% year once a decade, and if you don’t need to convert the assets to cash within five years, then you could invest more aggressively. You could rely on the bond-like income stream of your paycheck or retirement benefits while raising your asset allocation in stocks, including small-cap and international equities, to enjoy greater returns.

If you find that an occasional 25% loss causes you enough emotional stress to consider abandoning your strategy at the worst possible time (despite its long-term rewards) then reduce your asset allocation of equities until the volatility is low enough to live with. Everyone swears that they’re able to tolerate a high degree of investment volatility, but that’s generally only true during a bull market. No one enjoys downward volatility, and selling equities at the bottom of a bear market will quickly wipe out those earlier years of extra gains.

If you’ve used your Reserve/National Guard career to reach retirement with a smaller pension, or if you retired with no pension at all, then consider using a portion of your savings to buy a no-frills annuity that provides a small percentage of your retirement income. (Milevsky’s book has more details on the types of annuities and their expenses.) Annuities earned a (deservedly) bad reputation in the 1990s for their high sales commissions and expenses, but even Milevsky has been impressed by their recent improvements. Insurers have learned a lot about estimating their annuity risk, too, and their products are more likely to be backed by a strong company with adequate assets. An annuity isn’t as highly guaranteed as a military pension, but your retirement annuity can support a “basic necessity” lifestyle. Keeping a few years’ expenses in money markets and CDs will allow you to ride out the worst of a bear market’s volatility while remaining confident that your overall portfolio has the resiliency (and the time) to recover from the inevitable financial roller-coaster.

Related articles:

Retiring on multiple streams of income
Retiring from the Reserves and National Guard
Retiring without a military pension

Does this post help? Sign up for more free military retirement tips via e-mail, Facebook, or Twitter!

%d bloggers like this: