≡ Menu

Weekend reading: The safest banks in the world?

Weekend reading

Good reads from around the web.

I wonder what  we’re supposed to learn from Global Finance Magazine’s 2012 ranking of the top 50 safest global banks?

Or more pertinently, I wonder what it learned from its previous lists?

As a blog by the Wall Street Journal points out:

In 2007, the Top 50 counted as Numbers 11-13 Citigroup, Royal Bank of Scotland and Dexia. The list also included HBOS, Wachovia, ABN Amro and Fortis.

One financial crisis later and the idea that any of those banks were safe in 2007 is laughable.

We all know what happened to HBOS and RBS, and most of the others cited met a similar fate.

For the record here are its 2012 rankings, which are derived using long-term credit ratings and total assets:

1. KfW – (Germany)

2. Bank Nederlandse Gemeenten (BNG) – (Netherlands)

3. Zürcher Kantonalbank- (Switzerland)

4. Landwirtschaftliche Rentenbank- (Germany)

5. Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg – Förderbank (L-Bank) – (Germany)

6. Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations (CDC) – (France)

7. Nederlandse Waterschapsbank – (Netherlands)

8. NRW.Bank – (Germany)

9. Banque et Caisse d’Épargne de l’État – (Luxembourg)

10. Rabobank Group – (Netherlands)

11. TD Bank Group – (Canada)

12. Bank of Nova Scotia- (Canada)

13. DBS Bank – (Singapore)

14. Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp – (Singapore)

15. United Overseas Bank – (Singapore)

16. Caisse centrale Desjardins – (Canada)

17. Royal Bank of Canada – (Canada)

18. National Australia Bank – (Australia)

19. Commonwealth Bank of Australia – (Australia)

20. Westpac Banking Corporation – (Australia)

21. Australia and New Zealand Banking Group – (Australia)

22. Kiwibank – (New Zealand)

23. HSBC Holdings – (United Kingdom)

24. Nordea – (Sweden)

25. Bank of Montreal – (Canada)

26. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce – (Canada)

27. Svenska Handelsbanken – (Sweden)

28. China Development Bank –(China)

29. Bank of New York Mellon Corp – (United States)

30. Agricultural Development Bank of China – (China)

31. National Bank of Abu Dhabi – (United Arab Emirates)

32. CoBank ACB – (United States)

33. Pohjola Bank – (Finland)

34. National Bank of Kuwait –(Kuwait)

35. DZ Bank – (Germany)

36. Banque Fédérative du Crédit Mutuel (BFCM) – (France)

37. U.S. Bancorp  – (United States)

38. National Bank of Canada – (Canada)

39. Northern Trust Corp – (United States)

40. Qatar National Bank – (Qatar)

41. Samba Financial Group – (Saudi Arabia)

42. BancoEstado – (Chile)

43. La Banque Postale – (France)

44. Bank of Taiwan – (Taiwan)

45. Shizuoka Bank – (Japan)

46. Banco de Chile – (Chile)

47. BNP Paribas – (France)

48. Wells Fargo – (United States)

49. Standard Chartered – (United Kingdom)

50. SEB – (Sweden)

So two British banks on the list, including recently-mauled Standard Chartered.

Personally, despite my despair over bankers and their salaries, I think many banks may prove good investments from here, especially the more stodgy retail ones.

US giant Wells Fargo, for instance, meets my idea of a safe bank. It currently trades at around 1.7 times tangible book value. That’s far more than the 0.5 times investors are prepared to pay for Lloyds, for example, yet the premium seems to me deserved after Wells came through the sub-prime meltdown and subsequent crisis with flying colours. It has a very sound old-fashioned business model, too, based around a vast horde of cheap customer deposits rather than wholesale funding.

Wells traded at well over three times tangible book value before the crisis. I’m sure it will again some day, and I’m toying with buying.

[continue reading…]

{ 4 comments }

How would you fare in a bond market crash?

A bond crash would hurt a lot of investors, especially big institutions

For most of the past 30 years, nobody has worried about lower prices for government bonds.

In the UK and the US, bond yields – which go down as bond prices go up – have fallen as steadily as TV channels have multiplied and footballers’ salaries have gathered zeroes.

The grind has been so remorseless that for most of the time we didn’t even notice it, like a frog being boiled alive on a beach in the Costa del Sol because he forgot his sun hat.

This wasn’t the sort of bull market that excited private investors. Like most, I didn’t really see a reason to prefer bonds to cash when I started investing – let alone favour them over equities.

Yet bonds went on to beat shares over ever-lengthier historical periods, after two stock market crashes in a decade beat equities up something rotten.

The long gilt yield was very nearly 15% in 1980, and as recently as 1990 it was at 12%. It continued to fall pretty steadily for 20 years – barring a wobble in 1994 that was called a ‘massacre‘ at the time – to approach 5% by the turn of the century. Then, in the nervous wake of the financial crisis, ‘safe’ UK and US bond yields headed unthinkably lower.

In 2012, ten-year gilts sneaked briefly below 2%, which would have seemed about as plausible to a red braces wearing Yuppie in the City in the 1980s as a mobile phone that didn’t do double-duty as a doorstop.

Bond yields have fallen for 30 years. What goes down must go up?

Yields are unlikely to fall much further on this graph – if only because at 2% there’s not much further for them to go. Theoretically, yields could halve again to 1% – or less –which is the sort of thing that happened in Japan. But at current levels I’m reminded more of Zeno’s paradoxes.

Indeed, scars hard-earned on the investment battlefield make me much more worried about falling bond prices than missing out on further gains or forgoing their 2% income a year. That is why I personally hold no government bonds, and prefer cash for ballast.

But how fearful should those holding UK government bonds (aka gilts) really be?

Italian, Spanish, and even Greek bondholders were once pretty confident about their ‘safe’ investments, too, and look where it got them.

How far would your own bonds fall if yields rose in a bond market crash?

A word of warning to would-be traders

Before I show you how to estimate how your bond holdings could fare in a sell-off, a word of warning.

My co-blogger, The Accumulator, has already asked whether pure passive investors should sell their bond funds ahead of a correction, and concluded they should not.

And despite my bearish stance on bonds, I agree with him.

Firstly, a bond crash is by no means inevitable – do a Google and you’ll find people have been expecting one in the UK and the US since at least 2008 (which was when I first got worried). Yields could bump along the bottom like this for many more years if we continue to stumble in and out of recession.

Secondly, even if you do successfully move out of government bonds, are you really ready to become a more active investor – with all the hassle and likelihood of inferior returns it entails? Will you know when to get back into bonds, or how much to allocate to equities instead, or what to do if bond prices keep rising instead of falling like you expected?

The evidence is pretty clear that most people would do best to invest passively and rebalance between their asset classes periodically. Like this, you’ll automatically top-up any declining bond allocation from your other assets that are hopefully doing better. And you’ll benefit from the secret wisdom of passive investing, which is that it works when you follow the plan, rather than vacillating with the headlines.

Read The Accumulator’s article on whether to sell your bond fund if you’re on the passive camp. Then by all means read the rest of this article for your erudition – but not, I’d suggest, ahead of taking evasive action.

How bond prices will fall when yields rise

Most people hold their bonds via a bond fund or ETF. However it’s easier to first explain how bond prices – and hence the value of a portfolio of bonds – can fall by looking at what happens with individual bonds.

We need to establish a few things:

  • It’s normal to talk about bond yields, rather than bond prices, due to how investors compare bond yields with interest rates, inflation, and yields from other asset classes.
  • Many factors explain why bond yields rise and fall: expectations about growth, inflation, and interest rates are most important. (Credit risk – the risk of default – is not normally an issue for government bonds, though that’s no longer the case in Europe!)
  • Bond prices and yields are inversely related. When bond yields rise, prices fall, and vice versa.

Please read my articles on UK government bonds, how to calculate yields, and what drives yields and prices higher and lower if you don’t already understand the vital differences between bonds, cash, and equities.

The key point is that bonds deliver a fixed return at whatever price you buy them for. This return is made up of all the income you’ll receive for the life of the bond, plus the face value of the bond that you’ll be repaid when it matures.

By combining these two income flows (income plus return of capital) and looking at the years left to run on the bond, you can calculate the redemption yield, which is the estimated annual return you’ll get from the bond if you hold to maturity, assuming you can reinvest the income at the same rate.

Redemption yields are nearly always positive. This is vitally important to appreciate when anyone talks to you about a bond market crash. If you hold a UK government bond (gilt) to maturity, you’ll get your money back via the total return.

For instance five-year gilts are currently priced at £140. When they mature, the holders will be repaid the face value of £100 per bond.

By the looks of it, then, anyone buying them today faces a certain loss of just over 28%.

However this five-year gilt began life with many years to run, and was initially issued when rates were high. The coupon on the bond is 8.75%, entitling the holder to £8.75 in income a year for the life of the bond.

That adds up to £43.75 over the five years remaining, which when added to the £100 face value means a buyer today can expect to receive £143.75 back from their investment, or a small profit of £3.75. Do the maths (or look it up) and you’ll find this is equivalent to an annual redemption yield of 0.69%.

In other words you’ll expect a positive total return from this bond, even though you face a certain capital loss.

This is very different to equities, where neither capital returns or dividends are ever certain in advance. That’s the first huge thing to realise if you’re fearful about a bond market collapse.

(I am not going to go into real returns in this article, which take into account inflation. Of course 0.69% is a terrible real return with inflation over 2% and hideously unattractive in my view, but it is the going rate as I write and whether it is sensible or not is not the subject of this piece).

Duration, and why it matters

So far, so arcane – such is the world of bonds – and now for another wrinkle.

Remember I said that redemption yield calculations assume that you can reinvest your coupon at the same rate – but also that yields rise and fall over time?

Clearly there’s a conflict here. Redemption yield is a useful approximation, but that’s all it is, as higher or lower yields may be available over a bond’s lifetime of reinvesting its coupon.

If the bond has only a year or two to run, you can be pretty confident of the rate you’ll get when you reinvest. But what about when you’re reinvesting in 20 years? All bets are off, as interest rates are likely to fluctuate all over the place during that time.

This means that bonds become riskier the longer they have left to run – which is why long bonds (those with ten or typically many more years to run) pay a higher rate then short-dated bonds.

Risk and reward go together, remember? If your friendly neighborhood bond peddler wants you to buy a 30-year bond when one-year bonds are available sporting very certain returns, you’re going to want a higher rate of return to compensate you for tying your money up for 30 years of sleepless nights.

Bond traders wised up to this years ago. While the rest of us drank, danced, and looked forward to the advent of cheap air travel, they struck upon a measure called duration, which is properly defined as how long (in years) it takes an investor in a bond to get her money back through interest and capital payments, but is commonly referenced as the sensitivity of a bond to interest rates.

The bond wonks then went a step further, and created modified duration, which is a slightly more accurate measure of the sensitivity of a particular bond to interest rates. I’ll (incorrectly) use the terms pretty interchangeably from here.

You can work out the duration of a bond for yourself using a formula, but I wouldn’t bother. It’s available via various proprietary data sources, and I’ve just discovered you can also download it via the government’s own data on daily gilt prices via the DMO website. You can also try plugging numbers into a duration calculator.

If you do so you’ll see a long list of gilts in issuance, and you’ll notice that duration increases the longer a bond has left to run.

This makes perfect sense, since as we’ve discussed you’re more uncertain about interest rates the further out you go.

You’ll also see that duration is always less than the time left to maturity.

Again, pretty logical; you’ll benefit from the cash flows from the annual interest coupon, as well as the principle repayment at the end, so you’ll get your money back before the bond matures1.

Finally, duration is affected by yields and the coupon rate on the bond, as well as by how long it has left to run. Duration falls as yields increase, and vice versa.

This makes perfect sense, too – if you’re getting 8% a year on a 20-year bond, it’s going to take you a lot less time to get your money back than if you are being paid 2% a year.

This final factor has especially big practical ramifications when rates are very low, like today, as I’ll get onto later.

How bond prices will fall when yields rise

So we have two vital pieces of knowledge:

  • Holding UK government bonds (gilts) to maturity will very likely deliver a positive (if pitifully small) return, since redemption yields are currently positive for all issues.
  • Gilt prices fluctuate with interest rates, as indicated by their duration, on their way to that final repayment date.

Together this means that if you hold a portfolio of gilts and intend to run them all to maturity, you can assume that you are going to get your money back, with a bit of interest.

However you also know that their value will go up and down until then as interest rates fluctuate, according to their duration.

Let’s put all this together with some examples.

To work out how much a particular bond will rise or fall if its yield to maturity rises or falls, you multiply its duration by the hypothetical change in interest rates. (Remember that as yields of bonds rise, prices fall, and vice versa).

For instance, consider a ten-year gilt maturing in 2022 (named 4% Treasury Gilt 2022), which I see from the DMO website has a modified duration of 8:

If the yield rises by 0.5%, the price will fall by 4% (because 0.5 x 8 = 4)

If the yield rises by 1%, the price will fall by 8%

If the yield rises by 2%, the price will fall by 16%

On the other hand:

If the yield fell by 0.5%, the price would rise by 4%

Another way to work out how your bonds will change in price is to use a bond calculator, and to try out various different scenarios. You should find the numbers returned are the same as those you’ll calculate using duration.

How do you work out how bond funds might fall?

Exactly the same technique can be used to calculate how bond funds will fall as interest rates rise.

The trick is to use average yield and duration data that factors in all the bonds in a fund’s portfolio.

Such data should be available in your fund’s latest fact sheet. For example, here’s bond data for the iShares short-dated gilt ETF (Ticker: IGLS).

How much should you worry about a bond market crash?

Now you know how vulnerable your bond holdings are to a sell-off and rising yields, what if anything should you do about it?

As I said at the top, there’s a strong answer for saying you should leave well alone. While it may seem a no-brainer that rates will rise and bond prices fall, it’s seemed that way before:

Here’s a fund manager writing in the FT in August 2010:

“All told, benchmark ten-year bond yields may normalise at rates between 3.25% to 3.5% in the eurozone and 3% to 4% in the US in the course of next year.”

Actually, rates on US ten-years are now less than 2%, and nobody talks about ‘eurozone rates’ any more, given all the divergences.

By December 2010, other FT pundits were growing more confident a crash was coming:

“A great 28-year bull market in bonds in its dying throes, and inflationary pressures building, unless leverage and herding behaviour have suddenly become a thing of the past, no investor should be surprised to find that bond markets are vulnerable to sharp and painful adjustments, of which last week’s movements are a foretaste.”

Actually, UK gilt yields have approximately halved since then to their low point this summer.

Even more amusingly, we can go back to 2006, and this FT piece entitled A dangerous bubble in the gilt market:

“Real interest rates on long-dated government gilts have fallen still further, in some cases to below half the level in the US. This is a bubble on top of what may be a global bond market bubble.”

I could go on and on, back to the 1990s or even the 1980s.

The point is not that these writers are idiots – far from it. I was worried about a bond bubble in 2008. It’s that the future path of rates is very uncertain, however certain it looks at any time.

For most people, bonds are in a portfolio to protect against stock market crashes and to reduce the volatility of returns. Private investors are not advised to trade bonds for the best outcome (and I repeat again that held to maturity, all UK gilts will currently deliver a positive nominal return). Given how gilts have confounded the experts it is probably foolish to try.

That said, I hold no gilts, and it’s partly because they give me the willies. Call me foolish, but I prefer to hold cash, for its higher yield and optionality2.

What makes bonds particularly risky at the moment is the low yields you get for holding them. As we’ve seen, this increases duration, and so makes them much more vulnerable to interest rate shocks.

You don’t need to be a bond market nerd to understand this. It’s simple maths.

Total return in a year from a bond = Change in price + income received

In normal times, a decent yield will shore up your total return. For example, if a bond yielding 5% falls 10% in a year, the total loss for the year would be -5%.

In the great bond collapse of 1994, the Vanguard fund that tracks the US bond market saw a negative return of roughly -3% for the year! (It did fall further intra-year). Hardly the stuff of nightmares, is it? All those interest payments ameliorated the capital loss (which proved temporary anyway, as yields soon resumed their march down, and hence prices rose).

When yields are very low, this safety cushion is not available.

We’ve had a few discussions about the wisdom of holding bonds on Monevator in the current climate, and I suspect some readers think I’m complacent about the risks. I’m really not complacent, as I hope this article demonstrates.

However you’ve got to realise that the average person would have sold gilts years ago if they were looking to trade them, and may well have bought them back at a higher price as yields continued to fall. The bond market is inconceivably deep and liquid, and is currently being buffeted about by abnormal factors like QE, too. You think you know better than it does at your peril.

A more pragmatic response if you’re concerned about today’s low yields but want to keep owning bonds would be to hold bonds (or bond funds) with a lower duration. As we’ve seen, this reduces their sensitivity to interest rates, so you’ll not be hit as hard by a crash should rates rise.

I don’t hold any gilts, as I say. Cash suits me fine as a buffer.

You pays your money and takes your choice.

  1. For short-dated bonds, and given the low yields of today, we might better say you will theoretically get your money back before you are repaid the principle. In practice, the lump sum principle repayment will be required for short and medium bonds and even most long bonds at low yields to return your money, plus a bit more. []
  2. That is, the ability to quickly deploy it into another asset class such as shares or bonds. []
{ 22 comments }

How much will bond funds fall if interest rates rise?

Bond prices go up and down inversely as yields rise and fall

Most private investors these days prefer to hold bond funds rather than individual bonds, either via passive ETFs or, if heroically optimistic, through managed bond funds.

A bond fund obviously holds lots of different bonds of various yields and maturities, which enables it to avoid getting slammed by the Trade Descriptions Act.

For instance, the popular iShares FTSE All Stocks Gilt (Ticker: IGLT) consists of 39 different gilts. As the name suggests, it includes all sorts, too, from short gilts that are due to mature in the next couple of years to long-dated issues that won’t mature until after I’ve received my bus pass.

How on Earth, I hear you cry, are you supposed to work out by how this baby will fall in value if interest rates rise?

Happily, it’s easy to get a rough idea by using the same factors that we employed in working out how bond prices fall when yields rise. Namely the yield to redemption, the modified duration, and a hypothetical interest rate hike.

And handily enough, iShares provides you with easily accessible data averaging out the yield and duration of all the bonds in each of its bond ETFs’ portfolios.

By using this data, you can calculate how your bond fund will fare in a variety of different scenarios.

For example, for the IGLT fund as I write:

  • The yield to maturity is 1.64%
  • The modified duration is 9.46

If the yield to maturity were to rise to 3%, the price of the fund would fall:

1.36*9.46 = 12.9%

Remember that a bond fund is constantly changing as short issues mature and are redeemed and new long-dated bonds enter the portfolio (or as traders buy and sell bonds in the case of an active fund).

Over time a fund will therefore tend to self-correct as interest rates rise, as new and higher-yielding long-dated gilts enter its portfolio.

Should you sell your bond fund before prices fall?

The steady refreshing of a bond fund’s holdings over time doesn’t mean prices can’t fluctuate in the shorter-term, however.

IGLT has risen about 13% since the start of 2011, as rates have fallen. That could be reversed just as quickly.

However in our view most passive investors should probably not sell their bond funds trying to second guess the market, but rather let regular rebalancing work its magic over time.

{ 2 comments }

Using a pension calculator to plan for a decent retirement

Saving for retirement is tough, but not nearly so tough as getting started in the first place. To get going you need a retirement plan. To get motivated you can try putting some numbers through a pension calculator.

Did that? Disappointed the predicted outcome falls hopelessly short of your expectations?

You’ve got two options. One is to find a big bucket of sand to stick your head in. The other is to set your face against stony reality and work out a Plan B.

I think you know what to do…

A fine example of a plan

There now follows a pension calculator comic strip showing how a failing plan can be put back on course. But first some plot exposition.

Our hero is Corporate Colin. Colin works for da man, slaving away for 30 grand a year as a counter of bean counters in Nowhere Business Park.

Colin is 30-years-old and if he can pull three cherries on the defined contribution fruit machine then he’d like to retire on £20,0001 a year, age 65, in 2047.

2047 – that’s 35 years from now. This thought alone is enough to make Colin reach for the cyanide pills but luckily he stumbles across Monevator while conducting an online price comparison and rediscovers his joie de vivre through the medium of simple investment wisdom.

But I digress. Colin harbours some other dark secrets that you should know:

  • He intends to divert £300 per month – or 12% of his salary – into his pension fund.
  • That maxes out his matching employer contributions at £150 per month, or another 6% of salary. The calculator assumes that contributions and wages will increase in line with inflation (defined as 2.5% a year).
  • Colin’s existing pension assets are zero. Which is slightly higher than his level of respect for his boss.
  • Colin has a wife and though he can’t understand how she’d want to live without him, he nevertheless selects the 50% spouse annuity option, just in case. That means his significant other will soldier on with 50% of the income in the event of Colin’s untimely death.
  • Our protagonist has even dared to read the calculator assumptions, just in case there’s some hidden knowledge buried in there that he can turn to his advantage.
  • He understands that the income projected by the retirement project-o-tron is based on annuity assumptions that will probably bear no relation to his situation in 2047.
  • He’s happy to have his income index-linked at 3% a year when he retires because he wants to be able to afford beer at £60 a pint in 2067.
  • Colin is keeping his state pension out of it. He’s going to get a forecast done, but wants his state pension to be a buffer in case things go horribly wrong.
  • In the nick of time, Colin remembers that his £20,000 retirement income will be taxed. A quick spin on a tax calculator reveals that Colin will be living on £18,100 a year, after tax, at age 65. Colin can accept this. It’ll be 2047 after all and the tax system may well look very different. What can you do?

Colin tires easily and can take no more assumptions. So let’s get on with it.

Fire One – The range finder

Colin enters his numbers into the calculator and dreams of a world without emails marked URGENT!

The range finder

Disappointing. An income of £20,000 after 35 years didn’t seem a lot to ask for but nonetheless, our Col has pulled up short. If he doesn’t take action then he’ll be living on £15,000 – which is 75% of the desired amount.

A diet of Aldi spam doesn’t sound great, so let’s consider some alternative scenarios.

Doing nothing is not one of those scenarios as the ‘delaying for five years’ part of the calculator tells a chilling tale of penury. It really is now not never for our hero.

Fire Two – Reduce costs

As a good passive investor, Colin will use cheap index trackers to hammer down his investment costs. So he goes into the calculator’s advanced options and turns the annual management charge down from 1% to 0.5%.

Hammering costs with index trackers

That move alone makes a pretty big difference – projected income is now nearly £17,000 – but at 84% of the target Colin needs to do more. It’s time to suck down some more painful solutions.

Fire Three – Working longer

With a deep breath, Colin dials away a few more years of his life and delays his retirement age.

Work longer

Putting another three years onto his working life and retiring at 68 does the job for our masked wage slave.

It amounts to no more than the push of a button now, but perhaps working for longer as a part-timer may be less painful when it comes to the crunch. The £21,000 income is a wiggle-room bonus.

Fire Four – Saving more

“No chuffin’ way am I working for those vampires a moment longer than I have to,” thinks Colin in a rare flash of rebellion. How much more do I have to save for retirement to get out at 65?

Save more

Colin’s contributions must go up by another £100 every single month for the rest of his working life to hit his target income by age 65. Though that’s only £80 in actual spending money, thanks to tax relief.

Fire Five – Live on less

Can’t save more, won’t save more? What about getting slash happy on the target income? What difference will that make?

Live on less

Colin has to shrink his living expenses to £16,700 a year to make his plan work. That’s a steep 16% drop.

There is another string to pull though. It’s marked ‘hoping for the best’…

Fire Six – The big bazooka

The calculator currently assumes an expected annual return on investments of 7%.2 Colin dances with the devil in return for a growth rate of 9%.

The dream scenario

Wow. All Colin’s problems are solved! The projected income shoots up to £32K per year and the target is busted.

Is 9% per annum possible? Yes, but it’s massively risky to bank on it.

Historically a 60:40 equities and bonds portfolio has averaged 7%. But many are predicting sub-average returns over the next decade or so, especially as bond yields have sunk so low. Investors starting in the early 1980s could have comfortably scored a 9% return, but history has not been so kind to market entrants in the Noughties.

You can see how different asset allocations have faired using Vanguard’s Asset class risk tool. (Click on the grid icon when it loads).

The bottom line is that the more you shoot for the stars, the better chance you have of hitting yourself in the foot.

Fire Seven – Trench warfare

As an antidote to the intoxicating temptations of a 9% return, Colin takes a quick look at the 5% per annum return scenario – and promptly chokes on his digestive.

The nightmare scenario

Shocking. Earning a return of 5% a year instead of 7% shatters Colin’s dreams. The projected income of £8,600 is 57% less than he needs and would amount to a catastrophic failure of the plan.

This is the nightmare scenario and it can happen to the cautious and adventurous alike. The prospect of low growth is why most of us must bear risk through our asset allocation but the markets can’t be trusted to behave as we would like.

So don’t be over-optimistic, do all you can as soon as you can, and hope it doesn’t happen to you.

Fire Eight – The scatter gun

Suddenly 7% expected growth doesn’t look so bad, but it still leaves our office survivalist battling to close the retirement income gap. Perhaps the medicine will seem less harsh if it comes in smaller doses?

Fighting on all fronts

That does it. By working one year longer to age 66, upping the savings rate another £25 a month (only £20 with tax relief) and cutting income expectations to £19,000 a year, our hero is finally able to create a palatable sacrifice sandwich that doesn’t make him baulk.

Fire Nine – More ammo!

Remember that any retirement plan is about as precision guided as a SETI sweep of the stars in search of ET. Don’t be fooled by the ludicrous exactness of projected income figures. Reality will turn out differently.

Even using a different calculator may get you a very different answer, though the assumptions may seem similar.

The scatter gun approach

Trustnet’s pension calculator projects a much rosier income of £25,000 per year based on Colin’s original inputs and a 7% growth path. But the Hargreaves Lansdown calculator used for the main example is the most transparent one I’ve found when it comes to assumptions and adjustable parts.

Do let us know about your favourite calculator in the comments.

Fire and don’t forget

Your plan will need monitoring and deft touches on the rudder to stay on course:

  • Lifestyling – You may want to lower the risk in your portfolio as you get closer to retirement. Bear in mind this may also reduce your growth rate.
  • Rebalancing – This technique enables you to stay true to your original asset allocation when market movements cause it to drift.
  • Changes in circumstances – Promotions, inheritance, periods of unemployment, and the rest of life’s rich tapestry may prompt you to revisit your plan and adjust your expectations.
  • Unexpected growth rates – Periods of spectacular gain or loss may demand a rethink. Maybe you’ll be able to reduce the risk in your portfolio and cruise home in style if the markets smile upon you. Maybe we’ll end up with the 5% (or worse) nightmare scenario and have to work longer, save more, and live on less. I hope not.

If nothing else, an exercise with a pension calculator shows what a grueling marathon building a retirement pot is for the average wage earner. See you at the finishing post.

Take it steady,

The Accumulator

  1. For simplicity, all figures strip out inflation so we can safely talk in today’s numbers. []
  2. Before inflation. That amounts to a real return of 4 – 4.5%. []
{ 23 comments }