Skip Navigation
 

How To Plan For A Risk-Free Retirement

My latest blog

Is It Right To Reclaim Bank Charges?

Published in Retirement & Pensions on 4 August 2008

The industry’s solution to your last ten or fifteen years of retirement planning is contradictory. Read how a Fool might do it.

There is a clock that allows you to type in your age, whether you smoke and so on, and then it ‘calculates’ when you’re going to die. The clock sits on your computer desktop, ticking down to your death. That tickles my macabre sense-of-humour.

Those of you with less than fifteen years until retirement could perhaps do with a similar clock which counts towards that somewhat happier occasion. Not only do you see your future freedom ticking ever closer, but it gives you a focus for your financial goals. 

So, what should you do with your retirement pot during this fifteen-year countdown?

If you have a secure final-salary scheme that will support you sufficiently, then you might not have any serious planning to do at all. Most of us, however, are investing our money in such things as the stock market or property. These markets have two main defining characteristics:

1. Over the long-term, they go up (so far, anyway).

2. In the short-term they can fluctuate dramatically, rocketing upwards or plummeting downwards.

Over the decades you have been investing (I hope) for your retirement, your retirement pot will have gone up and down and sideways. By now, however, most of you should have a considerably bigger pot than the total amount of money you put into it.

You will shortly be offered products by the pension industry which include something called a ‘lifestyling option’. Indeed, if you’re using pension to save for retirement then you may already have selected this option years ago and forgotten all about it.

The financial industry’s solution

Lifestyling is the industry’s answer to the question ‘What should you do with your retirement pot during the fifteen years before retirement?’ Each provider has its own scheme, but they’re basically variations on a theme. Here’s an example of how one might work:

Stage One

14 years until you expect to retire. The provider moves say 20% of your riskier investments, e.g. shares in emerging markets, to shares in big UK companies, which are expected (although not guaranteed) to be more stable.

13 years to ten years remaining. A similar size of your pot is moved to these safer shares every year for four more years until it’s all invested in UK companies.

Stage Two

Five years remaining. 20% of your fund is moved from UK shares to bonds or cash accounts, where it will earn interest, and where it cannot be hit by a fall in the stock market.

Four years to one year remaining. A similar size of your pot is moved from UK shares to savings each year, which gradually makes your retirement pot safer.

Does it work?

Lifestyling is not the scariest idea to originate from financial companies. I’m sure that most people who’ve saved diligently come out the other end of it in a financially sound position. However, my opinion is that lifestyling doesn't suit those who already have a big enough pension pot for their needs.

Once you accept that investing is for the long-term (the industry and The Fool agree on that much), and providing your pot is big enough, then it makes no sense to have any money invested in the stock market in the last five or, more preferably, ten years before you start drawing an income from it. (An exception is where you’ve decided to continue investing the money beyond retirement, but this article is aimed at the majority who don’t.)

Imagine: there are only five years to your retirement and you have a nice healthy pot. Then a war starts. Or credit crunches once again. Or the economy collapses. The stock market crashes heavily in just two months and continues to fall for three years before recovering somewhat over the next two. If you use lifestyling, you might lose 20% or more of your pension pot over those five years. This means that you’re post-retirement income will be four-fifths of what you thought it would be. A £20,000 annual retirement income becomes £16,000. Ouch!

Hopefully the more aware financial companies will contact you before too much damage is done and recommend that you move your funds out, but my view is that, for many people, the money should not have been at risk during those final years at all.

A more Foolish way to approach retirement

The industry always tells younger investors to invest for the long-term, but older ones are told to continue investing for the short term, albeit in smaller amounts. That is contradictory.

The alternative is to get out of shares altogether at least five years before you retire. Assuming you're lucky enough to have saved the pot you need (factoring in the impact of inflation) five or even ten years before your expected retirement date, then as soon as you hit your target, I think you should transfer all your investments to cash funds, where it will earn interest until you retire. Why take the risk that the stock market will fall when you’ve got all you need?

One thing’s for sure, I do not want to be invested in the stock market at all when I have less than five years to do so.

How to get started

To plan the 15 years or less that you have remaining, you’ll first have to estimate the pot you’ll need when you retire. You can calculate this using my Four-Step Guide To A Comfortable Retirement. Then you are ready to track your pension and get out of riskier investments when the time comes.

If you have five years remaining, but find that you’re far short of your target, that is a totally different kettle of fish. The big question to ask yourself is: should I gamble my pension on the stock market over a short period of time, or should I cut my losses and move it to cash funds? The choice for me would be easy; I’d cut my losses so that I knew I at least had some money of my own, and focus on reducing my bills and earning more money over the next five years. However, it depends on your attitude and personal circumstances.

Really, though, funding your retirement if you haven’t saved enough is not the topic of this article. You can get more guidance in this podcast or by searching our retirement article archives.

What you invest in is also very important, because not all investments are equal! You can read about The Fool’s top tip here and more on it here.

> You can save for retirement using shares ISAs and get out of shares within the last five to fifteen years by transferring your share ISA investments to cash ISAs.

Share & subscribe

Comments

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool. If you spot any comments that are unsuitable hit the flag to alert our moderators.

Saveaholic 05 Aug 2008, 6:35pm

It's a strategy, but it seems a bit extreme to move out of the markets completely. Obviously you need to move your risk profile downwards a bit as you approach retirement, but retirement isn't a one-day event like a wedding, it's a period of time which for most people will hopefully last 20 years or so. It seems a shame to lock yourself completely out of potential stock market growth over that period. And you can only put £3600 a year into cash ISAs...

jonesjeff 05 Aug 2008, 11:53pm

If the market has already fallen substantially & is offering very good value 5 years before one's retirement, then to sell out of shares would be madness.

edgeofreason 06 Aug 2008, 6:29am

It is difficult to generalise as everyone's circumstances are different, but the opposite strategy (ie invest in several types of assets including cash) would be best when inflation is potentially going to eat up most of (maybe all of) any interest gain each year. I agree with Saveaholic that most of us hope to live 20 or 30 years in retirement and we dont want to be diminishing our savings by just having cash deposits, comforting though that may feel initially; it wont look clever in the long run. Nothing is without risk, we each have to choose the level we will be happy to live with and hope our decision turns out half decently.

Dhahran2001 06 Aug 2008, 8:30am

I agree with jonesjeff.

If you don't like risk, don't go into shares. Invest £300 pcm every month into a Cash ISA.
Easy - and no need to think. But please don't bleat about poverty in retirement when you get there.

bushj 06 Aug 2008, 8:52am

interesting debate, i guess it is down in the end to personal choice.
there is another issue, who to invest with. say you and your wife quite sensibly have multi Sipps, so they can be cashed for the tax free part when it suits each of you. but also perhaps the entire fund is 500k - do you have it all with one wrapper provider?
would you please rpvide your view
thanks JB

Iniq 06 Aug 2008, 9:28am

Not a very good article and not very good advice, I'm afraid

Doesn't sound like a good idea, to simply move out of shares suddenly - this might be just when they are at a low point.

Surely it is wiser to do what many pension providers recommend - to move out gradually over several years, selling a fixed number of shares each year. This is pound-cost-averaging (which I would hope all readers are familiar with)in reverse.

There might be a useful debate as to how soon before retirement you should start do this, but this is not the issue which the writer seems to be addressing.

TMFVertigo 06 Aug 2008, 10:56am

Hi

Thanks for your comments, folks!

Many investors such as yourselves are happy to stay in shares for less than five years, but this article is aimed at the majority, who don't know enough about shares and share markets to time them properly. Personally, I wouldn't try to time them either, because the risk level is too high for me over the short-term. My pot, for example, will have been growing for forty-odd years before I retire, so I shouldn't need any risk in those last five years.

I have to disagree with this Dharan: 'If you don't like risk, don't go into shares.' Not investing for the long-term is in itself a risky strategy if you're not otherwise providing for your retirement. The key is the word 'long-term' - not less than five years.

Iniq, it's a shame you disagree with my article.

when you have all the money you want for your retirement - you've achieved your goal - you therefore might want to eliminate any risk that the pot will shrink again.

Of course, if you'd rather take more risk because you don't have a fixed pot-size in mind - you simply want to be as rich as possible - then investing for those last five years, and pound-cost averaging, is the way to go. bushj had it right: it's down to personal choice.

Pound-cost averaging is a useful tool though. There is one reason why I might take as long as six months or even a year to transfer my funds from shares to cash. (That is what pound-cost averaging is). That reason would be because it can take quite a long time for the provider to move your funds. In that time, shares prices might have fallen, so pound-cost averaging will help to protect against that...That's a bit technical for this already-long article though...

TMFVertigo 06 Aug 2008, 10:58am

Ah, edgeofreason, I forgot to respond to your comment about inflation. You must have missed it, but in my article I said that you don't switch to cash until you have the pot-szize you need at retirement 'factoring in the impact of inflation'. Therefore, any interest you earn in those last five years should be a bonus, unless inflation shoots up faster than you accounted for.

iaincu 06 Aug 2008, 12:36pm

Done some quick calculations taking account of index linked annuity rates and the possible impact of inflation over the 10 years before you get to buy them on an income you are that happy to lock yourself into. I reckon this article is applicable to people with a pension pot over a million pounds. Perhaps unsophisticated investors with those are few on this bulletin board!

Also, if people really want to lock in the value of an annuity, shouldn't they be transfering into gilts rather than cash to remove one of the risks to annuity rates?

selimap 06 Aug 2008, 1:22pm

7 years to retirement, and I'll probabl;y leave some portion invested beyond that. Pot is not enough for what I would like to live on (it's quite modest).

But right now, my 'portfolio' is much reduced from, say, 1 year ago because of stock market movements. So maybe I should have had a bigger percent in lower risk investments/savings. But what do I do now? Sell and lock in losses?

My curent thinking is that I hope for a recovery in next 7 years, then switch a lot of stuff to cash-type investments when it looks high. May never happen, things could fall further.

Iniq 06 Aug 2008, 3:51pm

I agree with the principle of moving assets into less volatile investments prior to retirement. That is also what most pension companies recommend. It also seems sensible to do this over a period, not suddenly, both to benefit from pound-cost-averaging and to minimise the likelihood of selling all your shares right at the bottom of the market.

However, there is certainly a debate to be had regarding what period of time you should do this over, and how soon you should start doing it. Frankly, the pension companies' guidelines seem appropriate to me.

The extra-cautious might want to start doing so even earlier. But if you want to start moving out of shares VERY early on, one starts to ask - why invest in them in the first place?

If the Fool want to publish a REALLY useful article, why not remind people of all the other assets which can be held in a stock-and-share ISA as an alternative to shares, many of which are less volatile and some of which are (unlike shares) actually tax-free in an ISA.

After all, there are many people who have fully used their cash ISA allowance and want to use their stock-and-share ISA allowance as well, but recognise that as they approach or enter retirement, shares are not always appropriate.

For instance, I'd like to buy some index-linked gilts, but if I want to hold them in an ISA, I seems to have to pay some broker at least 0.5% a year for the privelige of providing an ISA wrapper, or hold them in a fund, where the not-very-transparent charges are probably even greater.

How about the Fool providing some insights and advice here?

gillianswain 07 Aug 2008, 4:32am

I considered my parents stupid, old, uneducated and Victorian whom I, with my University degree and Mensa certificate, thought a little foolish and not to be listened to, when I was a young teenager. Then an amazing thing happened, for as I grew older I found that they had suddenly, by some miracle, developed wisdom. My uneducated mother, whom I was rather ashamed of as a child, knew more about people and the way of the world than I did or ever will do and my father was just a gentle, highly talented genius and a joy. So what is my point with regards to pensions? Well, I am now getting older and I will when it is time for me to retire, as I have throughout my life, put their wise words into practice:- (1) Put some aside for the bills (2) Save some in a bank account - high interest of course - for the rainy day or for those household repairs (3)Invest some so that you have some growth - think over a shorter "long term" when you retire so that your pension doesn't entirely run out(say 10/15 years - after all it won't matter much when your "dribbling into your cornflakes") (4) Have some fun money - after all you have worked hard and deserve those holidays, meals out etc. When you finally do shuffle off this mortal coil by all means leave a bit of money to your family (but remember you have worked hard for it so spend some on yourself before the grim reaper arrives) and perhaps a little to your fellow man via your favourite charity. So as my old, stupid parents used to say, "don't put all your eggs in one basket" and never give control of your money to someone else as they have a nasty habit of using it for themselves. By the way, I broke this last rule on one occasion only and put some money in a stocks and shares ISA (I told Abbey National with whom I have the shares that I was newly widowed and needed a medium/low risk investment for my retirement - in 10 years it has never been above £200 more than I invested and has frequently been as much as £2,000/£3,000 lower - my friend, who is not a so called highly trained fund manager, made more money in 3 months picking his own stocks and shares than Abbey has done in 10 years so DON'T BE TEMPTED TO HAND YOUR "EGGS" OVER TO ANYONE ELSE).

Dhahran2001 07 Aug 2008, 10:42am

A quick response to Vertigo, 1056 August 6, who may have misunderstood my comment.

Reward is what I expect for taking risk and I am comfortable in retirement with share holdings in Alliance Trust and BAe Systems plus some gilts.
I certainly do not recommend the 'no risk' 'Cash ISA' strategy for retirement provision.

robnoblewarren 07 Aug 2008, 2:43pm

There are standard professional ways to analyse what asset allocation a person should have at any point. Most (fee-only) planners re-calc the asset allocation for the client every three months, both for the portfolio and the pension. The calculation is made using two steps - testing a monte carlo financial model of the individual to determine the best risk/return pairing, and modern portfolio theory to determine the allocation that matches that risk/return. Fee-only planners tend to include these computations in their initial report of how well your money is behaving. Wealth managers then use these to fine tune the portfolios as people get to retirement. At this stage, I don't think there's a way that individuals can do this for themselves, but the cost of these reports is about the same as seeing a dentist. Life companies and IFAs don't provide these reports: fee-only planners do - see www.fee-only.net

thriddle 07 Aug 2008, 6:44pm

This all makes the unstated assumption that you're going to buy an annuity the day you retire. There are other ways of funding retirement income - like the HYP - where you want to stay invested in (the right kind of) stocks, and live on the dividends.
Thriddle

Lump101 13 Aug 2008, 9:40pm
mitchcumstein01 05 Sep 2008, 5:12pm

HYP all the way - no need to worry about rip-off annuities, get a well diversified HYP, surely the most flexible option? Reinvest dividends 'till you need the income, simple, transparent, plus you don't even have to worry about the capital value falling before you retire, the income received not affected by market volatility, and it should rise along with or even above inflation, sweet.

Join the conversation

Instructions

Line breaks are converted automatically.

You may use the following tags in your post: <b>bold</b>, <i>quoted text</i>. All other tags will be removed from your post.

Hello stranger

To add your own comment, please login.

Not yet registered? Register now.