重新审视退休提款计划及其历史回报率

Christopher W. O'flinn, Felix Schirripa
{"title":"重新审视退休提款计划及其历史回报率","authors":"Christopher W. O'flinn, Felix Schirripa","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1641382","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines the historical record of the so-called 4% rule, the popular guideline for sustainable real annual withdrawals in a self funded retirement. Our findings indicate that a withdrawal plan following this rule (“4R”) carries an historical risk of failure for a long retirement that is much higher than generally acknowledged. For example, we find that 15% of the historical 35-year retirements failed when funded with equal parts of stocks and bonds. The “real” withdrawal plans that generated no historical failures were all less than 4%, sometimes far less, when retirements exceeded 25 years. The historical failure rates that we find for a 5R plan are higher than a 4R plan by a factor of at least three for all retirement periods. The historical failures are not random. Rather they occur in clusters of years in which the majority of new retirement withdrawal plans fail. A key driver of these failures was a rapid, significant and lasting increase in the rate of inflation - this event increased withdrawals and contributed to a declining real rate of return that was ultimately unable to support the withdrawal plan. Although TIPS bonds and inflation-adjusted annuities are both too new for historical analysis, we note they may offer an opportunity to curtail income plan failures in the future. This is because they (1) offer a known real rate of return and (2) adjust for inflation close to the time at which inflation impacts withdrawals. Our review of the prior literature and a detailed description of the methodology used in the study appear at the end of the paper, after the Summary and Conclusions section.","PeriodicalId":127004,"journal":{"name":"SIRN: Retirement Income (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Revisiting Retirement Withdrawal Plans and Their Historical Rates of Return\",\"authors\":\"Christopher W. O'flinn, Felix Schirripa\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.1641382\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper examines the historical record of the so-called 4% rule, the popular guideline for sustainable real annual withdrawals in a self funded retirement. Our findings indicate that a withdrawal plan following this rule (“4R”) carries an historical risk of failure for a long retirement that is much higher than generally acknowledged. For example, we find that 15% of the historical 35-year retirements failed when funded with equal parts of stocks and bonds. The “real” withdrawal plans that generated no historical failures were all less than 4%, sometimes far less, when retirements exceeded 25 years. The historical failure rates that we find for a 5R plan are higher than a 4R plan by a factor of at least three for all retirement periods. The historical failures are not random. Rather they occur in clusters of years in which the majority of new retirement withdrawal plans fail. A key driver of these failures was a rapid, significant and lasting increase in the rate of inflation - this event increased withdrawals and contributed to a declining real rate of return that was ultimately unable to support the withdrawal plan. Although TIPS bonds and inflation-adjusted annuities are both too new for historical analysis, we note they may offer an opportunity to curtail income plan failures in the future. This is because they (1) offer a known real rate of return and (2) adjust for inflation close to the time at which inflation impacts withdrawals. Our review of the prior literature and a detailed description of the methodology used in the study appear at the end of the paper, after the Summary and Conclusions section.\",\"PeriodicalId\":127004,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"SIRN: Retirement Income (Topic)\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-05-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"SIRN: Retirement Income (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1641382\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SIRN: Retirement Income (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1641382","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文研究了所谓的4%规则的历史记录,这是一个流行的指导方针,用于在自筹资金的退休中可持续的实际年度提款。我们的研究结果表明,遵循这一规则(“4R”)的提款计划在长期退休中存在失败的历史风险,其风险远高于普遍认为的风险。例如,我们发现,历史上35年的退休人员中,有15%的人在股票和债券比例相等的情况下失败了。当退休年龄超过25年时,历史上没有失败的“实际”撤资计划都低于4%,有时甚至远低于4%。我们发现,在所有退休期,5R计划的历史失败率比4R计划高出至少三倍。历史上的失败并非偶然。相反,它们发生在大多数新退休提款计划失败的年份。这些失败的一个关键驱动因素是通货膨胀率的迅速、显著和持续上升——这一事件增加了提款,导致实际回报率下降,最终无法支持提款计划。虽然通货膨胀保值债券和通货膨胀调整后的年金都太新了,无法进行历史分析,但我们注意到它们可能为减少未来收入计划的失败提供了机会。这是因为它们(1)提供已知的实际回报率,(2)在通货膨胀影响提款的时间附近对通货膨胀进行调整。我们对先前文献的回顾和研究中使用的方法的详细描述出现在论文的末尾,在总结和结论部分之后。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Revisiting Retirement Withdrawal Plans and Their Historical Rates of Return
This paper examines the historical record of the so-called 4% rule, the popular guideline for sustainable real annual withdrawals in a self funded retirement. Our findings indicate that a withdrawal plan following this rule (“4R”) carries an historical risk of failure for a long retirement that is much higher than generally acknowledged. For example, we find that 15% of the historical 35-year retirements failed when funded with equal parts of stocks and bonds. The “real” withdrawal plans that generated no historical failures were all less than 4%, sometimes far less, when retirements exceeded 25 years. The historical failure rates that we find for a 5R plan are higher than a 4R plan by a factor of at least three for all retirement periods. The historical failures are not random. Rather they occur in clusters of years in which the majority of new retirement withdrawal plans fail. A key driver of these failures was a rapid, significant and lasting increase in the rate of inflation - this event increased withdrawals and contributed to a declining real rate of return that was ultimately unable to support the withdrawal plan. Although TIPS bonds and inflation-adjusted annuities are both too new for historical analysis, we note they may offer an opportunity to curtail income plan failures in the future. This is because they (1) offer a known real rate of return and (2) adjust for inflation close to the time at which inflation impacts withdrawals. Our review of the prior literature and a detailed description of the methodology used in the study appear at the end of the paper, after the Summary and Conclusions section.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Green Urban Development: The Impact Investment Strategy of Canadian Pension Funds Do Defaults Limit Consumer Response to Rainy-Day Funds? Evidence from 401(k) Participants During the COVID-19 Pandemic Do New York City Teachers Have 'Adequate' Retirement Benefits? Norms in Behavioral Interventions: Peer or Anchoring Effects? Why Are 401(k)/IRA Balances Substantially Below Potential?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1