≡ Menu

Weekend reading: First they came for the growth stocks?

Weekend reading logo

What caught my eye this week.

For the past few years, being an investor in disruptive growth companies has been easy.

There’s been the odd hiccup – a tantrum in late 2018, and of course March 2020 when everything not nailed-down was sold in a panic.

But mostly, you just got richer every week.

Perhaps the biggest challenge this cycle was seeing your go-go shares only rise 5% in a month, while some meme stock jumped 300% and a crypto asset you’d never heard of rose 10,000%.

Bull markets don’t just make everyone (seem like) a genius.

They make greedy geniuses, too.

But investing in shares on ever-higher valuations is a game of chicken.

Even if you’re a fundamentals-based investor (like me, la-di-da) who buys into businesses, not stock charts, the market will eventually call your bluff.

You may own firms with fabulous futures, but one day they’re going to look about as appetizing as chlorinated chicken sounds. They will be tossed overboard indiscriminately.

The greatest multi-bagging companies – Tesla, Amazon, Apple – saw their value plunge 50-90% on their way to trillion dollar valuations.

It’s a matter of when, not if.

Under pressure

Friday was one such day. Which was remarkable, because Thursday had already seemed like one such day.

I’d actually messaged The Accumulator a screenshot from my portfolio tracking spreadsheet on Thursday showing how much the growth portion of my sprawling portfolio had been roiled.

But then came Friday, which guffawed: hold my beer.

Not one but two of my shares fell more than 25% on Friday. The worst was down 40%. Many of the rest were down at least 5%.

And we’re not talking tiny fly-by-night stocks. My biggest plunger, Docusign, was worth more than $50 billion a month ago.

Here’s how a random selection of growth companies fared last week:

Of course all of these companies – with the arguable exception of Meta (nee Facebook – have looked super-pricey for the past couple of years.

And there’s a definite ‘de-digitalization’ theme among the companies that have been faring especially badly.

Even as Omicron has loomed, the so-called work from home stocks that were winners in the locked-down world have proven too pricey for some tastes. Especially with higher interest rates on the way.

I wrote last month about how inflation expectations have been getting stickier all year. That had suggested Central Banks will need to tighten financial conditions sooner or more severely – or both. And that’s potentially bad for growth stocks because of the impact on discounted cash flows that I flagged up a few years ago in discussing the problems with low interest rates.

Twelve months ago, fanciful commentators were opining that paying multiples of 50-times a company’s sales (that’s revenue, not profit) was the new normal.

And it was – in that everyone was doing it.

Until they weren’t.

Another one bites the dust

Obviously I can’t sound too smug. As I say, a good part of my portfolio was pummeled this week.

I’ve been trimming growth exposure for much of 2021 on the back of re-openings and scary multiples.

But clearly in hindsight I kept too much and – hilariously – I’d even bought back some fallen high-flyers because they had begun to look tempting.

Oops.

However this is not my first rodeo. I know shares in growth companies can look too expensive for years in a bull market, and I was happy to book the gains in the good times. A kicking was coming someday. The snag was I didn’t know when.

But will the legions of new investors who only began trading in 2020 and have never seen a bear market be so sanguine?

Thursday and Friday felt like a panicked liquidation – of traders on margin, if not of actual funds – but at the index level prices only dipped a little. This was a very localized earthquake.

There’s a lot more selling to come if people truly get the fear.

Of course, as I alluded to above much of the fastest money has moved onto trading cryptocurrencies.

Doubling your money in a growth stock in a year was a snooze-fest for Boomers by comparison to alt-coins and the like.

I wonder what such traders made of the past 24 hours in crypto prices on checking their screens this morning:

Come back plunging growth stocks – all is forgiven!

It sure looks like the euphoria is over.

Don’t stop me now

If you’re a passive index fund investor then you’re entitled to feel pretty good about all this.

For UK investors, the Vanguard World Index Fund was down less than 1% in the week.

It actually rose on Friday!

The mega-tech companies that dominate the market (Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon and the like, though not Meta) have barely wobbled so far.

Passive investors also save themselves a lot of grey hairs by avoiding days like Friday – albeit at the cost of rarely being able to brag about your returns on Twitter.

Most people will do much better with index funds than stock picking, which is why we recommend passive investing so much on Monevator.

But I wouldn’t get too complacent.

An interesting feature of the recent sell-off is that it’s occurred while the all-important US ten-year yield has actually been softening.

Indeed market expectations for US interest rates are flattening across all maturities recently.

Say what?

Basically, as of recent days, the market is seemingly expecting US interest rates to rise less in the future.

That could be because it foresees another recession, maybe virus-driven.

It could be because it’s thinking that inflation is more transitory, after all.

Or it could be that bond investors are growing increasingly fearful in general, perhaps due to the same flight to safety instinct that drove the mass dumping of expensive growth stocks this week.

After all, if you expected Omicron to lock us all inside again, then the likes of Zoom Video should perhaps be rising.

So there’s some circles to be squared here.

I could speculate about this all day but it’s not really our beat.

Suffice to say we’re potentially in one of those periods of dislocation for the markets, where things change and it only looks obvious how in hindsight.

It had seemed like stock markets were getting ‘healthier’ in 2021.

Last year’s returns were dominated by the biggest companies. But the spoils had been shared more evenly recently, as Morningstar reported:

Will this continue?Maybe the recent sell-off is evidence of investors coming to their senses, as value investors might put it, and dumping their growth shares for solidly profitable companies?

Or is a new bear market coming – taking out the easy targets before moving on to the biggest prey?

Who knows. Anyone being too defensive has made a mistake for most of the past ten years.

I was too exposed to growth stocks in partly because the end of the year is usually so strong, and the outlook seemed favourable until a fortnight ago. Things can change quickly.

Who wants to live forever

We’re all playing a long-term game. As an active investor, I believe I can outperform the market by discerning the best companies that will prosper over the next 5-10 years (albeit I shuffle my cards continually, which is heresy in the circles I hail from).

I even bought some growth shares on Friday – buying into boutique cloud provider Digital Ocean and adding to old favourite Mercadolibre (the so-called ‘Amazon of Latin America’, only not that Amazon…)

These still look like long-term winners to me. But in the short-term anything can happen.

Meanwhile for passive investors, the best defense is and always will be diversification. Even steep crashes will eventually look like blips provided you’re properly diversified and can hold and add through such declines.

Because a time will come – maybe next week, maybe next decade – when the sort of falls growth stocks ‘enjoyed’ on Friday will occur at the index level.

The S&P 500 will be down 8% in a day. The FTSE 100 will be off double-digits.

It’s always inconceivable until it happens. But it does happen.

Maybe this week was the market re-calibrating for a long expansion ahead. Perhaps the old companies that burn and bash stuff are due some time in the sun.

The bull market is dead – long live the bull market!

Perhaps, but I fancy it still isn’t a bad time to make sure you’ve got the right balance in your portfolio for navigating whatever comes next.

Have a great weekend.

[continue reading…]

{ 39 comments }

Buy the rumour, sell the news

Looking into the future with a crystal ball

A new investor has a thousand ways to be confused by the stock market. Hearing the old adage ‘buy the rumour, sell the news’ won’t help.

What on earth?!

  • Why buy shares when you’re not sure what’s going on?
  • Or sell when a great thing is finally confirmed?
  • Why be uncertain at all in 2021 – when the facts are just a Google away?

If you’re asking these questions, then you don’t yet understand how markets work.

Which is what makes this old instruction so – well – instructive.

Buy the rumour because the market prices forward

The basic idea here was as familiar to white-wigged traders swapping paper in 17th Century Amsterdam as it is to today’s meme stock chasers punting on Freetrade and RobinHood.

Buying the rumour is all about what is priced into a share – and when – and whether you have an edge against your fellow share sharks.

In theory, a share price reflects the market’s best guess as to the current value of all the cash that will ever come due to its holder in the future – with a discount applied for risk and the time value of money.

Of course, prices can be buffeted by emotions and fads. This is what we mean when we gravely intone how a share “has become disconnected from fundamentals”. Recall, say, the manic trading of GameStop in early 2021.

But most of the time, most of the share price in an efficient market reflects a best estimate of a company’s cash generation potential.

Granted, this theoretical truth is seen best in an economist’s model. It’s not always so apparent in the hurly burly of a real-life stock exchange.

Not least because the market is no single entity. There’s no godlike bookkeeper with one eye on Excel and the other eye on the newswires.

Rather the market comprises millions of individuals, funds, and AI algorithms churning billions of shares. There’s a wide disparity in aims and time horizons. There’s also a varied appetite for risk and reward.

Mr Market has many faces

Sometimes in aggregate investors are greedy, and will pay a lot for future cashflows. That leads to higher equity prices.

Other times they’re scared and prefer the certainty of cash in the bank. This reduces the general appetite for shares.1

Much of the time, very few market participants are seemingly doing any sort of discounted cash flow analysis or similar on those future earnings at all.

Instead they are chasing news. Or rising prices. They are buying because of an economic report or a release from a rival firm. Or a million more reasons.

A fund manager may pay more because it was sunny on the way to work, or because her database says a share is priced cheaply compared to history.

An investor may put money into Tesco because he just did his shopping there. He may buy on the rumour that a new gizmo is already selling out. He may sell on a hunch that a popular CEO is leaving.

Yet the object of most of this guesswork typically does have some bearing on future earnings. Okay, not that sunny commute maybe, but leadership changes or a smash hit product will impact the bottom line someday.

It all adds up.

You can think of a share price’s moves in the short-term as almost like the result of ‘Asking the Audience’ in Who Wants To Be A Millionaire.

Trades on a stock exchange are like votes cast with money.

Told you so

Sooner or later, any bit of guesswork is confirmed or refuted.

A CEO stays or goes. The hit Christmas toy sells out – or it transpires such rumours were a marketing stunt. Or maybe the toy does sell out, but only because they didn’t make enough of them. As a result the anticipated earnings boom never happens.

When millions of rumours are replaced by more knowledge in this way – whether through formal press releases, or by altering the profit and loss statement or the balance sheet in a firm’s reporting – mis-pricing begins to be corrected.

A bit of froth is taken off a share price here. Some gloom is dispelled there.

And so – over the long-term – share prices track earnings.

True, you may have to wait an age to see this. Think Amazon or Tesla.

Alternatively, the relationship between profits and a share price might be apparent quite quickly with a consumer staples company like Unilever.

Cyclical outfits such as miners typically see their share prices rise and fall well ahead of big earnings changes, like cats chasing their own shadows.

And did you notice I said ahead of earnings?

Wait for a cyclical company to confirm a downturn and you’ll probably have already taken a chunky loss by the time the news arrives.

Guessing ahead is the name of the game with cyclicals.

Buy the rumour to buy mispriced shares

Hopefully the adage ‘buy on the rumour sell on the news’ now makes sense.

If you’re trying to beat the market, you need to think and do something different to the market in aggregate, as represented by current share prices.

You might value a particular security differently.

Perhaps you’re operating at a different timescale to most participants?

Maybe you have a different attitude towards risk and reward.

(An apparent bargain price is often just a discount applied by the market to reflect the chances of something good and expected never happening.)

In any event, in most cases being able to anticipate something before it happens will be more profitable than waiting until everybody knows about it from an official news release.

Sure we can argue at the margins.

For example, the momentum factor’s history of out-performance may be due to investors taking longer than expected to properly incorporate new information – even when fully confirmed – into their valuations.

Meanwhile a lover of so-called quality shares like Warren Buffett or the UK’s Nick Train might argue the market systemically undervalues long-term compounded earnings generated by duller, more predictable companies.

I’m the sort of investing nerd who would happily debate all this with you in the pub, but that’s for another day.

Just make sure you grasp the main point before you look for exceptions.

Don’t be that guy

Don’t be like the talking heads on financial TV who every day seem amazed: “Monevator Enterprises shares soared after-hours despite reporting big losses”.

The market already knew that losses were coming. Investors expected even bigger losses. Or they didn’t appreciate a shift in the earnings mix. Maybe they like the new-news that the CEO is flogging off the loss-making divisions.

Or perhaps it’s one of a hundred other things.

“Why have my shares plummeted after Monevator Inc. reported record profits? The stock market is insane!” – say day traders everywhere, every day.

Perhaps the market is indeed slightly over- or under-pricing your shares. (It’s very unlikely to have the valuation right on the nose.)

Or maybe it has cottoned on to the fact that the surge in revenues at your company looks unsustainable.

That your company is juicing profits by under-investing.

Or a hundred other things.

If I had a drink for every time I’ve heard media pundits or online posters bewailing an ‘irrational’ market that in fact was looking months or years ahead – and long before you were – then I’d be checking myself into the Priory.

Not least because I’ve bewailed like that myself, too.

We’re all only human.

Buy the rumour, sell the news

Remember, the stock market is a forward-looking prediction machine. It tries to discount the value of what it sees through the mists of time ahead via today’s share prices. It’s doing this all the time.

You’re probably best off not trying to do it better than the millions of smart people and machines that make up the market.

Invest passively, buy index funds, and benefit from their hard work.

But if you must play the crazy game of active investing, stop obsessing over what everyone already knows – or what they think they know.

Think different, and before they do.

  1. You can see this in varying CAPE ratios over time, as investor fear and greed ebbs and flows. []
{ 4 comments }

Weekend reading: Many shall fall that now are in honor*

Weekend reading logo

What caught my eye this week.

Today would be embarrassing if Monevator was an old-fashioned print magazine (as opposed to an old-fashioned ‘weblog’!)

I’d be scurrying past the newsstands. Trying to avoid my cover story – already written by Wednesday due to magazine print deadlines – about the bull market disguising how last year’s mega-winners had cratered in 2021.

That post looks less topical this Saturday morning. Because in case you hadn’t noticed – in which case, collect your merit badge from The Accumulator by the door – markets were roiled on Friday by fears of a new Covid variant that seemingly has just been spun-up in someone’s body-lab in South Africa.

This ‘Omicron’ variant has more mutations than a Chernobyl-era chicken, and on the surface a transmission rate that makes Delta look about as speedy as an epistolary 18th Century love affair.

The City fears it’s seen this movie before. So traders have dumped first, and will ask questions over the weekend. At least the potential for a speed bump in that bull market, then.

To only rub salt into the wound, this was also the week I decided that the ‘Covid corner’ section of our weekend links had run its course. Oops!

Turn, turn, turn

In some ways though Friday’s reversal of fortune amplified the point I was set to make. Which was that nothing – ever – lasts forever in the markets.

If you’re a halfway active investor, you’ll remember that lockdown darlings like Zoom Video and Peloton were recently all the rage. Their shares skyrocketed while fund managers and everyday traders were using their products every day.

But as Will Hershey on Twitter recounts via a handy table, such shares – lauded as inevitable winners of a work-from-home revolution – have since crashed 35-70% from their highs.

On the Compound Advisors blog, Charlie Bilello makes the same point, adding:

after a year like 2020, [stock picking] almost seemed easy.

Had you purchased virtually anything in the high growth/tech/IPO/SPAC space, you would have outperformed the S&P 500 by a wide margin.

Right on, Charlie. I walloped the market in 2020.

But in 2021? Not so much!

Anyway, on Friday some of these 2021 reversals then reversed themselves again. At one point Zoom was up over 13% on the day, Peloton soared, and vaccine maker Moderna ended the session 21% higher on the not-unreasonable assumption that it might be busy retrofitting its vaccine for the new party pooper.

Some of those spikes were short-covering, I think. But it was also a reality check for investors that the pandemic was far from over.

Eight miles high

I’ve been following markets closely for 20 years. Even so I’m still amazed at how apparently unshakeable narratives crumble over time.

You had to own dotcom stocks in the 1990s. You were an idiot for believing in the Internet by 2003. UK private investors only cared about small cap oil and gas shares by the mid-naughties. Nobody should own equities in 2008 and 2009 – investing was all a con. The market was pumped-up and inflated by 2015. Retail share trading was finished by 2019 and we were all going to index – and then along came RobinHood and meme stocks. Government bonds could only crash said many Monevator commentators six weeks ago. They’ve since spiked higher. And so on.

Much of this stuff is only apparent if you’re naughty active investor. At the index level you tend to see broader, steadier moves.

That’s certainly not a reason to abandon index tracker funds – indeed for 99% of people it’s another great reason to own them. (If you want to keep enjoying sausages, never visit a sausage factory.)

Nonetheless, passive investors will someday face their own narrative shift. The market will crash and it won’t bounce back for a good while. “Buy and hold is dead!” we’ll hear. We’ve been through that cycle at least twice in the lifetime of this website alone.

And then that in turn will pass. In investing, never say never again.

Have a great weekend everyone!

*Horace, via the dean of value investing Ben Graham.

[continue reading…]

{ 33 comments }

How much should I put in my pension?

A warning sign image indicates it’s time to think about how much I can put in my pension pot

The answer to the question “How much should I put in my pension?” is surprisingly simple.

You need enough in your pot to sustainably generate a comfortable retirement income that will last you the rest of your life.

This post enables you to estimate how much pension pot you need to deliver that income.

Once you hit your target number, you can fire your job, and start a brand new life doing whatever you please.

Your pension pot target number depends on knowing how much income you can live on in retirement.

That might sound like an impossible ask. But you can arrive at an estimate using the method explained in our How much do I need retire? post.

With that retirement income target in hand, you need only complete one more step to calculate how much you should put in your pension.

The ‘How much should I put in my pension?’ calculation

Here’s a quick example that’ll show you how much you need in your pension pot.

Imagine that you want a retirement income of £15,000 on top of your State Pension.

The size of pension pot you need to retire is:

£15,000 divided by 0.03 = £500,000

Where:

  • Your required annual income = £15,000 (not including other income sources such as the State Pension.)
  • Your sustainable withdrawal rate = 3% (or 0.03)

In this example, you can retire once your pension pot hits £500,000.

That target amount should generate £15,000 in inflation-adjusted income for your entire retirement – assuming your pension is invested in global equities and government bonds. More on this below.

  • Substitute the £15,000 above with the retirement income you need from your pot.
  • Divide your income figure by 0.03 to discover how big your pension pot should be.
  • Add your State Pension and any other reliable income sources to tally your total retirement income.

Run this calculation twice if you’re part of a couple.

Account for tax using the tips in last week’s post.

Is that all I need to know?

The calculation really is that simple.

What’s more complicated is explaining why this approach is the best way to estimate how much pension pot you need.

You also need to adjust your numbers for inflation and the tax-free status of your Stocks and Shares ISAs, but that’s mercifully straightforward.

Keeping up with inflation

The example above produces £15,000 income from a pension pot of £500,000 at today’s prices.

If you’re retiring years from now – rather than today – then your numbers must be updated for inflation. Otherwise, you’ll lose purchasing power as prices rise.

All you need do is adjust your number once a year by the UK’s CPIH annual rate of inflation.

For example: let’s say inflation is 2.5% one year from now.

Just multiply your pension pot target figure by 2.5%:

£500,000 x 1.025 = £512,500

You need £512,500 in your pension pot to generate enough retirement income after 2.5% inflation.

Let’s double-check that pot will produce enough inflation-adjusted income:

£512,500 x 0.03 = £15,375

Your 3% withdrawal rate now delivers £15,375 in retirement income.

If you multiply our original £15,000 income figure by the inflation rate of 2.5% you get £15,375.

Hallelujah! The calculation checks out.

Do this once a year and your target number and retirement income will keep pace with CPIH inflation.

Stocks and Shares ISAs

Many people retire with a mix of pensions plus Stocks and Shares ISAs.

Calculate the target figure for your ISAs in exactly the same way as for pension pots.

If you want £5,000 of annual retirement income from your ISAs then divide that figure by the 3% sustainable withdrawal rate to work out your ISA target number:

£5,000 / 0.03 = £166,667

To gauge how much retirement income your ISAs will generate…

Multiply your ISA’s value by the sustainable withdrawal rate:

£166,667 x 0.03 = £5,000

This calculation applies to invested Lifetime ISAs and Stocks and Shares ISAs, but not to cash ISAs.

While we’re here, usually pensions beat ISAs for retirement saving, but not absolutely always.

Our pensions vs ISAs piece illustrates why tax relief and employer contributions mean most people will be better off favouring pensions.

However a clear-cut case for using ISAs in retirement is to shelter your pension’s 25% tax-free lump sum.

By getting your tax-free lump sum reinvested within ISAs as quickly as you can – subject to the ISA annual allowance – you can generate a tax-free income for the rest of your days.

The 25% tax-free lump sum – Incidentally, our 3% withdrawal rate assumes you will reinvest any 25% tax-free lump sum you take from your pension. If you take that money and reinvest it (whether in ISAs or in taxable investment accounts) then it still counts towards your overall retirement income. Money isn’t withdrawn unless you intend to spend it. Apply the 3% sustainable withdrawal rate to all your investments to understand how much annual retirement income they can deliver.

The sustainable withdrawal rate

We’ve used a 3% withdrawal rate to calculate the income your retirement pot can sustain.

This is the percentage you can withdraw from your pension (and other investments) in the first year of retirement.

That amount is your baseline retirement income figure.

You then increase your income figure for annual inflation every year thereafter to pay yourself a consistent retirement salary.

(That means the 3% element is only used in year one.)

But why a 3% withdrawal rate?

Leading retirement researchers have concluded this is the amount you can withdraw while minimising the risk of running out of money during a retirement lasting 40 years or more.

You’ll often hear that higher withdrawal rates than 3% are achievable. Usually that’s because people gloss over the problems of unpredictable future investment returns on retirements.

Happily, the State Pension – and any defined benefit pensions you’re lucky enough to have – don’t suffer from unpredictability to the same degree.

They should both deliver a reliable stream of inflation-proof income throughout your retirement, so long as UK PLC doesn’t go bust.

But few of us can live comfortably on the State Pension. Fewer still are lucky enough to enjoy defined benefit pensions these days.

The problem with pension pots

Most people in the UK now have defined contribution pensions. These do not offer a guaranteed income.

Instead you own a pot of investments in assets such as equities and bonds.

You generate an income from the pot by selling off these assets and spending the proceeds, along with the dividends and interest they pay.

However the income level you can safely spend depends on the investment returns of your assets. Those returns are inherently unpredictable.

If you withdraw too much too soon from your pot, your money could run out before you die.

Yet if future investment returns are strong, you’ll be positioned to withdraw a higher income than the 3% sustainable withdrawal rate suggests.

The retirement dilemma is you could spend too little (bad) or too much (really bad).

Running out of money is worse than not knowing what to do with it all.

Therefore, it’s best to use a lower withdrawal rate which drastically reduces that possibility, without setting you an impossible retirement savings target.

The 3% rate is derived from the worst investment return sequences world markets have suffered in the past 120-odd years.

It further depends on you holding a pretty aggressive asset allocation of 70% global equities and 30% UK government bonds.

If you’ve previously come across ‘the 4% rule’ then it’s worth you understanding why a 4% withdrawal rate may be too optimistic.

To find out more about the sustainable withdrawal rate check out:

Beware simplistic assumptions

Watch out for media sources or pension income calculators that base your retirement on assumptions like: “Your investments will grow by 5% a year.”

Such simplifications are too risky because they assume your pension pot will grow every year.

But everyone knows that investments can go down, as well as up.

The big mistake the standard calculations make is to use a simple average growth number that ignores losses.

Let’s detour through a quick illustration of the problem.

Constant growth scenario

This scenario assumes positive returns every year:

  • Year 1 return: 25%
  • Year 2 return: 25%

Simple average return: 25+25 = 50 / 2 years = 25%

A £10,000 investment would grow to £15,625 at 25% per year. Very healthy.

Volatile return scenario

This scenario includes losses, just like real investment returns:

  • Year 1 return: 100% growth
  • Year 2 return: -50% growth

Simple average return: 100-50 = 50 / 2 years = 25%

£10,000 grows to £20,000, but falls back again to £10,000 in year 2. We made no gain.

Both scenarios showed a 25% simple average return, but one is much worse than the other.

Unfortunately for us, our world looks more like scenario two.

What makes things even worse for retirees is that you’re drawing down your portfolio by spending it over time.

And in fancy terms, as a spender you’re subject to sequence of returns risk.

In simple English – the stock market could slump early in your retirement, meaning you need to withdraw a bigger chunk of an already-dwindling pot. You’d then have less money invested to benefit from any market rebound.

There’s no escaping the fact that sometimes investments inflict large losses. 

Major downturns can permanently damage your retirement prospects, even if declines in the market prove temporary.

Don’t keep it simple

This all makes it dangerous to use simple average investment growth numbers when judging how much pension you need.

The next example reinforces this warning.

Assume you start retirement with a heady £1,000,000 in your pension pot.

You withdraw 5% or £50,000 in income every year:

This table shows why constant growth assumptions are too simplistic.

A constant annual return of 5% means that your pension pot’s growth exactly covers your spending every year. Your wealth never drops below £1,000,000.

This portfolio’s simple average return is 5% over four years.

But as we’ve noted, in the real world investments are volatile. We take losses as well as gains.

The next table shows how losses can knock a big hole in a pension pot early in retirement.

We start with the same £1,000,000 pension pot. But a 50% loss in the first year cuts our pot to £500,000.

Then we withdraw our £50,000 retirement income. Our pot is down to £450,000 by the end of the year:

This table shows the impact of volatile investment returns on how much you should put in your pension pot

Our bad luck continues with another 50% loss in year two.

Thankfully the losses are temporary. The market bounces back strongly in the next two years.

Overall, we’ve experienced the same simple average return of 5%.

But our pot looks very different compared to the sunny constant growth scenario.

It’s shrunk to £318,000 instead of sitting pretty at £1,000,000.

The volatility of returns has left us in a far more precarious situation.

Recovering from losses

A major issue is that large losses require much greater gains to recover the lost money:

  • A 10% loss is recovered by an 11% gain.
  • But you need a 100% gain to recover from a 50% loss.

The 60% gains in the previous example were nowhere near enough to make us whole after that nightmare two years.

And a steep hill becomes a mountain to climb when you’re forced to sell your investments at low prices to pay your bills in retirement.

This inescapable truth is why the best retirement researchers advocate using a 3% sustainable withdrawal rate.

A 3% rate keeps withdrawals low enough – especially early on – to enable you to ride out historically bad investment returns, should you be unlucky enough to experience them.

Many happy returns

I’ve focused on the downside to show you why it’s important to use a cautious and sustainable withdrawal rate.

But investment volatility can work in your favour, too. A brilliant sequence of returns can boost your portfolio to giddy heights. Here’s hoping!

Ultimately, navigating the “How much should I put in my pension?” dilemma does involve an element of luck. As in poker, you can be dealt a terrible hand or a Royal Flush.

The important thing is to play your cards well and avoid being wiped out.

That’s what a 3% sustainable withdrawal rate helps you to do.

Take it steady,

The Accumulator

PS – If your State Pension and/or defined benefit pensions arrive later in your retirement, then you can increase your sustainable withdrawal rate a little.

This means you’ll work your pension pot harder at the outset, until your other pensions arrive to relieve the pressure later.

This is a complex area but if you want to follow one researcher’s solution then follow the walkthrough in this post. See the ‘Investment fees and the State Pension SWR bonus‘ section.

PPS – If you’re close to retirement, here’s the decumulation strategy I put in place to help me manage my volatile retirement funds.

{ 119 comments }