Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif

No. of Recommendations: 0
TMFPixy,

This post will compare two strategies on how to best draw down on your retirement money.

1)GG Model 70% equities/30% annuities purchased in 5 year increments.
2)100% in equities and draw off the income you need

I'm strictly an amateur and had to do this all by hand although I think the math is right. Starting assumptions:

2)Need to generate \$6000 of income in the first year
3)Income needs to keep pace with inflation
4)Used TABLE B from one of the 23 post from MF Pixy (Subject: Retired Ralph Redux -6) for salary needs
5)Used TABLE B from one of the 23 post from MF Pixy (Subject: Retired Ralph Redux -9) for S&P500 returns

GG model
--------

*Use 30% of principle to buy an annuity every 5 years
*Invest 70% of principle in the S&P500

*A 70 year old retiree can buy a 12% annuity
*A 75 year old retiree can buy a 13% annuity
*A 80 year old retiree can buy a 14% annuity
*A 85 year old retiree can buy a 15% annuity

For example, in the first year I start with \$100,000 and use \$30,000 to buy an annuity at 12%. The annuity will pay me \$3,600 a year so I need to cash out an additional \$2,400 from the principle. This leaves me \$67,600 to put into the S&P 500. As the S&P tanked that year -10.06% my principle shrunk over the next year to \$60,840. Since I now need 2790 from the principle to generate the 6201 in salary I only have \$58,239 in principle to start the year 1967.

In table A I put GG to the test.

--------------TABLE A------------------------

Price of Income
Year Income Prin Annuity Annuity

66* 6000 67600 30000 3600
67 6201 58239 3600
68 6390 69414 3600
69 6692 73999 3600
70 7101 64208 3600
71* 7491 45505 20052 6207
72 7743 50481 6207
73 8007 58262 6207
74 8711 47211 6207
75 9774 31148 6207
76* 10460 27457 12820 8002
77 10693 31042 8002
78 11705 25110 8002
79 12762 21997 8002
80 14460 19595 8002
81* 16253 11081 7784 9170
82 17706 2001 9170
83 18392 0 9170
84 19090 0 9170
85 19845 0 9170
86* 20593 0 9170

Ouch! I'm bankrupt in 1983 so this strategy is certainly no cure-all, but at least I have an income of \$9,170 for life. Let's see how it compares to a 100% equities strategy.

Table B data is from one of the MF Pixy post in the "Retiree Portfolio" thread. This model assume you are 100% invested in equities and will draw on the principle to generate the income in column 2.

--------------TABLE B------------------------
Yr Income Principle S&P 500
66 6,000 100,000 - 10.06
67 6,201 83,736 23.98
68 6,390 97,422 11.06
69 6,692 101,506 - 8.50
70 7,101 85,772 4.01
71 7,491 81,718 14.31
72 7,743 85,671 18.98
73 8,007 93,921 - 14.66
74 8,711 71,440 - 26.47
75 9,774 42,757 37.20
76 10,460 48,204 23.84
77 10,963 48,734 - 7.18
78 11,705 33,528 6.56
79 12,762 22,965 18.44
80 14,460 12,740 32.42
81 16,253 0 - 4.91
82 17,706 0 21.41
83 18,392 0 22.51
84 19,090 0 6.27
85 19,845 0 32.16
86 20,593 0 18.47

In this case, we see that the 100% equities position went bankrupt (1981) BEFORE the GG (1983) portfolio. More importantly you still have \$9170/year for the rest of your life. It is not much better than the 100% equities position, but I'll take what I can get.

cheers,
John Power

### Announcements

The Retirement Investing Board
This is the board for all discussions related to Investing for and during retirement. To keep the board relevant and Foolish to everyone, please avoid making any posts pertaining to political partisanship. Fool on and Retire on!
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.