[leslie]

Only opinion, but I would disagree with a few things.

I would not rely on principal draw down to fund expected living costs. I would consider that principal untouchable for the inevitably very costly last 5 years of long-term care.

I would consider you have longer to live than just 25-30 years. Because I retired early, I have to work on the assumptions that I need the income for perpetuity. But I would think you should consider death at 100 to be expected, unless you buy longevity insurance (Annuity) or unless the amounts you receive from CPP will be sufficient. You have to assume the WORST outcome, not the most likely.

A longer life has another consequence - inflation. To maintain the same value of draws, you have to reinvest some (= inflation) of each year's income back into the portfolio to increase its nominal value and nominal distributions.

Conclusion: if you don't change your portfolio I would cut back the amount you consider spendable.

If you go looking for conflicting opinions on your portfolio, you will find them. Did you really think the advisor would tell you to 'carry on'?

 

[leslie]

Owning your home mortgage free takes care of excess medical costs at the end of life. Assuming your CPP and OAS will cover most of your ongoing costs at today's CPI you have little longevity risk exposure either.

So that leaves only the degrading effects of inflation. Assuming CPP/OAS is not indexed to inflation (I don't know), you need to consider the investment part of your situation as the generator of all the growth in the cost of living. By definition, bonds cannot do that unless they are real-return bonds. I would put more into growth vehicles (capital gains from whatever source).

If the pensions ARE indexed, then inflation is not a worry either. The income from the investments would only buy the 'extra' lifestyle above what the pensions can buy. Assuming these are nice-to-have but not necessities, you should also take on the added risk that comes with higher returns. Your downside is protected, and you have a chance of more spending money.

When stated as a percentage of the total investment portfolio, it might seem a large %, but as a percent of the portfolio, plus house, plus PV of pensions, it would really be much less. How much % I cannot say without knowing what % of your costs will be covered by the other sources. Or whether you could completely live off the other sources in short periods of down-markets.

 

[leslie]

As that article points out, no article can take account of all the different people's situations.

What none of the generalized advise takes account of is the ownership of a house (not leasehold) to covers the biggest monthly cost (rent) and provides the capital for medical expenses or legacies at the end of life.

And what none of asset allocation rules take account of is the amount of income coming from the house (rent) and government programs. I personally will get little from CPP because I retired early, but most people with a house and decent CPP have very little to worry about.

The advice also ignores the reality for 95% of situations where the (e.g.) 4% withdrawal rate not only is sufficient to maintain enough capital but leaves you after 30 yrs with capital that is SEVEN TIMES BIGGER THAN WHAT YOU STARTED WITH. Look the Table 5 of this paper. That is a 6.7% growth rate AFTER draws.

Table 3 gives the probabilities of running out of $. You can see the advice is geared toward a great deal of certainty. And even those calculations have been revised by recent work that put together the investment returns possibilities with the probabilities of death along the way. Those results showed the risk of running out before death to be even lower.