Rising Glidepaths and Liability-Matching Portfolios

This week in the Wall Street Journal‘s Encore Report section, I have short pieces about reverse mortgages and budgeting in retirement.

Also, on Monday, William Bernstein published an article in the Wall Street Journal called, “How to Think About Risk in Retirement,” in which he discusses rising equity glidepaths in retirement, and cites the rising equity glidepath article I wrote with Michael Kitces.

His column ends with:

Reverse glide path or two-bucket LMP/RP strategy? You say tuh-may-toe, I say tuh-mah-toe. Either approach will do a superb job of minimizing your risk of dying poor.

I like this quote, because for me it represents the distinction between probability-based and safety-first approaches to retirement income planning. In the research article, Michael and I discussed rising equity glidepaths in the context of being a probability-based approach.

But in presentations I’ve done, I generally discuss the strategy as more of a safety-first approach. That is how William Bernstein eloquently describes the strategy in his column. This is what he means by the term “liability-matching portfolio.” Safer assets (individual bonds or income annuities) are matched to specific retirement spending needs, and then the remaining discretionary wealth can be invested more aggressively in a “risk portfolio.”  That’s the LMP/RP in the quote.

As you progress through retirement using a relatively conservative spending strategy, you are generally going to find, if stocks can enjoy some growth, that the percentage of remaining assets required to cover remaining spending needs is going to decline over time.

Actually, Michael and I wrote the “probability-based” article after first observing this sort of phenomenon in a “safety-first” article. (I should note that these opinions are mine, as Michael thinks the distinction between these two schools of thought is artificial and would probably not explain our research in the same way as I currently am).

We had observed in an earlier article that if you put half of your assets into an income annuity at retirement, and the other half into stocks, and then you treat the present value of remaining annuity payments as a type of fixed income asset when measuring overall household wealth, your equity allocation will generally rise throughout retirement:

allocation to assets

Source: Kitces and Pfau, “The True Impact of Immediate Annuities on Retirement Sustainability: A Total Wealth Perspective”

This is why I’m generally confident in the idea that rising glidepaths are justifiable. It can be explained either as (1) a risk management tool to get the same or slightly improved outcomes with a lower lifetime stock allocation using a probability-based approach, or as (2) the natural outcome of someone basing asset allocation on their funded status and devoting the necessarily percentage of their assets to safer assets covering their spending needs, and the rest of their discretionary wealth to more risky assets. Tuh-may-toe or tuh-mah-toe.

 

McLean Asset Management Corporation (MAMC) is a SEC registered investment adviser. The content of this publication reflects the views of McLean Asset Management Corporation (MAMC) and sources deemed by MAMC to be reliable. There are many different interpretations of investment statistics and many different ideas about how to best use them. Past performance is not indicative of future performance. The information provided is for educational purposes only and does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell securities. There are no warranties, expressed or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, or results obtained from any information on this presentation. Indexes are not available for direct investment. All investments involve risk.

The information throughout this presentation, whether stock quotes, charts, articles, or any other statements regarding market or other financial information, is obtained from sources which we, and our suppliers believe to be reliable, but we do not warrant or guarantee the timeliness or accuracy of this information. Neither our information providers nor we shall be liable for any errors or inaccuracies, regardless of cause, or the lack of timeliness of, or for any delay or interruption in the transmission there of to the user. MAMC only transacts business in states where it is properly registered, or excluded or exempted from registration requirements. It does not provide tax, legal, or accounting advice. The information contained in this presentation does not take into account your particular investment objectives, financial situation, or needs, and you should, in considering this material, discuss your individual circumstances with professionals in those areas before making any decisions.