How much of an ARF should be in equities?

That brings us right back to the original question posed – what's the optimum way of determining a reasonable allocation of assets within an ARF in a typical scenario?
I'm afraid this does not have an answer. It's like asking when does a foetus become a citizen, if you pardon the topical analogy. As O'Bama said that question is above his pay grade and so too is the ARF question despite many getting paid handsomely for pretending to have the answer.

The answer is personal in both cases. I came right up against this in recent times. The deferred pensioners of Zurich are all being offered handsome pay offs to switch from DB to ARF. Some whom I know of old have come to me for advice. Whilst the sums point to definitely taking the soup, I get completely stumped by the supplementary - where should they invest the ARF?

They are all getting free advice from Mercer which they are sharing with me. The Mercer method: Q: what is your attitude to risk? A: Low to medium in all cases; Advice - invest in the Prisma 3 (risk rating) fund which is about 40% equity/property/alternatives. It is simplistic but what else can you advise? I certainly am not pointing them in any alternative direction.

I know Colm Fagan is currently on a mission to persuade folk like this to be 100% equity and his arguments are powerful - I just don't have sufficient faith myself to promulgate that message.
 
Thanks Duke. I think that's a fair, if somewhat frustrating, response.

Interestingly, the Mercer recommendation would also have a 60-year-old at "age in bonds".
 
Apologies in advance - what's to follow may be a bit rushed - waiting to be called for my flight.

It is probably fair to say that Mercer would be generally considered in the top tier of advisers. (I am aware of criticisms of their administration capabilities which is a separate issue). I also have seen samples of their reports which the Duke has accurately summarised.

In essence, their advice seems quite basic in nature, as in:
- what's your risk rating?
- here's the fund for you.

Is this symptomatic of the level of advice out there? I suspect the answer is yes and I believe this for a number of reasons.

1. It's a very, very complex question (there is no one size fits all answer and as Sarenco correctly pointed out the right strategy may not give the right results!)
2. The approach taken by the likes of Mercer is compliant with Central Bank directions (a bit like the old one of no one ever gets fired for buying IBM)
3. There simply has not been sufficient debate/analysis/guidance on this by the professional bodies (do a google on this and you will not get very, very little Irish material)
4. The low response rate and the absence of detailed content to the key question from the adviser community in this and related threads.

I think that we can all agree that asset allocation is a primary determinant of investment performance so the lack of detailed commentary on the implications of the investment decision (as say in the Mercer report) is concerning.

For example - (admittedly going from memory) what was missing from the Mercer report that I have seen were meaningful details:

- about sequence of risk implications
- on appropriate withdrawal levels and strategy
- of the opportunity costs of an overly conservative asset allocation
- why "alternatives" are included in the asset allocation
- the implications of having a high bond allocation (especially in current markets)

The bottom line is that there must be a more evolved approach to the question than lumping someone into an off the shelf product equating to their risk rating. The report I have had sight of was in respect of a client with just over €1m in his ARF. The Mercer charge was 1.5% and I think for €15,000 clients deserve more for this spend than "lob it in to Prisma 3 and you'll be grand". There were additionally on-going costs - I can't recall the level - probably 0.25% or 0.5% p.a. - presumably to provide an update on how Prisma 3 got on during the year?

With the inexorable demise of DB plans, this will become a more and more common question and people will need better solutions. Realistically, advisers may not be able to add 3% p.a. to the returns of their clients - as has been the subject of another thread - but they should be able to add some value to a reasonably sophisticated ARF investor and I'd love to understand how!
 
Yep, same Mercer report alright. The central graph was to illustrate the run off of the ARF under 3 assumptions, central assumption of 2% p.a., a lower one of 1% p.a. and a higher one of 3% p.a. I think the ARF ran out at ages 86, 84 and 88 resp. and then they had the throw away comment that the cash lump sum would last another 8 or 9 years. Same graph for my three friends. I developed a somewhat more sophisticated Excel model which tried to illustrate the stochastic risks such as sequence of return risk. However it didn't seriously challenge the Mercer recommendation. I told my friends of the Colm Fagan message but they are not willing to take the risks, so fair enough. (Glad to share my "App" with AAM if I knew how to upload Excel spreadsheets.)

And yes Mercer were weak on ARF withdrawal strategy. At a minimum they should have advised to minimise ARF withdrawals and use their cash fund if necessary as this is likely more tax efficient.
 
Hi Sarenco,

What’s your view on someone not taking their mandatory distribution?

For a 61 year old, an ARF of €1m can have a mandatory distribution of €40k or just pay tax of circa €20k.

If someone negotiatied a very cheap QFM charge and bought a really cheap ETF for example (say 40bps all in).

Gordon
This question can be summarised as would you prefer to have €20k in hand or €20k behind ARF gates. Since you almost certainly have to pay some tax when you or your children exit the ARF it seems to me better to have it in hand. There is gross roll up behind the gates but this shouldn't be over egged - it is not tax free interest, still have to pay tax on exit and after all there is 8 year gross roll up outside the gates.
 
1) AmRF not subject to same drawdown requirements should have a more aggressive investment strategy than the ARF.
This strategy leads to systematic increases in overall equity exposure, which seems counterintuitive.
2) 100% equities is a sub optimal strategy due to volatility drag
Colm Fagan doesn't agree. "Optimality" is personal not objective.
3) The size of the fund and the variable requirement to take imputed distributions should inform the asset allocation decision 6% is materially different to 4%.
Other than transaction costs compulsory distributions are a red herring. You can always reinvest.
4) the charges incurred are another factor for consideration
Absolutely. A report commissioned by the DoF suggests that combined provider/distributor costs on ARFs can be as high as 1.5% p.a. Only the most aggressive of strategies can expect to overcome that sort of burden.
5) the annuity forgone should also be used as a hurdle for measuring how “successful” the arf strategy is. You’re not keeping up the Jones’s you are trying to do better than your own annuity rate after costs
6) I don’t think leaving money in the ARF and paying the tax from personal resources makes sense. If the value of the ARF falls you will have paid tax on money you lost.
I have covered these two points elsewhere.
 
Volatility drag is a mathematical effect not a personal question
I said "Optimality" was personal. I agree that all mathematics is objective.

I read the interesting paper you signposted. It is a development of the theme that the arithmetic average is greater than the geometric average, and somewhat more mundane than stochastic analysis. The stochastics only come in when demonstrating that the formula is accurate for a lognormal distribution. AM > GM is a mathematical truism without any economic implications, despite the best efforts of the pound cost average brigade.

Mindlin does refer to its relevance to asset allocation strategy for pension funds. But this is only to advise them to be careful in interpreting past performance figures. For example, say they are targeting a 5% return, they really mean they are targeting a 5% geometric return and therefore they could be misled if they look at past arithmetic average returns.

It is a very theoretical though interesting observation. I suggest it is of no relevance whatsoever for an individual's ARF allocation strategy. In any case all references to past performance that I have seen correctly refer to the average geometric performance.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Duke,

I, very literally, couldn't have put it better myself :D........let's not get caught up in these particular weeds please!

In fairness to Marc - the style of Kitces' analysis is attractive - just nay time to read the detail right now. BUT, and a big, big BUT - this is US based stuff (and thus only applicable to a point because of the level of bond yields in these here parts). I am aware that there is a debate in the US on this topic (loads of contributors in the public domain). I'm looking for, dare I say it, an Oirish solution to well, yes....
 
Last edited:
In my parents case their ARF is approx 10% of their combined real and financial wealth.

It has held its value over the last 5-10 years, after the annual income drawdown.

The annual income is 7% of their gross income.

I'm not sure of the exact asset split, it's invested 50/50 in two IL/Cornmarket funds, I think a Consensus fund and something else.

Even if it's 100% in shares, I'm not worried.

If it halved in value, and the annual income halved, it would have absolutely no impact whatsoever on their lifestyle
 
I know Colm Fagan is currently on a mission to persuade folk like this to be 100% equity and his arguments are powerful - I just don't have sufficient faith myself to promulgate that message.

The Duke is right: I am on a mission to persuade people to invest far more in equities than is currently the norm for ARF’s. I've been struggling to understand why I am so much of an outlier in my views; I think I have finally found the answer.

Most people think of equities as numbers that bounce around, sometimes going up, sometimes going down, often for no apparent reason. They take those numbers seriously. I don't. For me, equities are companies that I have researched and that I think represent good value in the long term. I don't particularly worry about share prices bouncing up and down; I just look at the fundamentals of the business, generally every half year after results announcements, and if things are going broadly as I had expected, then I don't give a fig for what the market says is the current value of the share.

Most people in Ireland live outside the rarefied world of finance and a significant number of intelligent, well-to-do people don't go near investment advisers, ARF’s or PRSA’s when planning their retirement . Their pension savings consist of a house or an apartment or two (or more if they’re lucky), the rental income from which they hope will generate a good income for them in retirement. I feel more akin to one of those people than to my fellow finance professionals.

My wife and I own our own home; we don't have any investment properties, but the eight shares that account for 94% of my ARF are my equivalent of rented out apartments. Those eight shares (think apartments) generate a rental income (sorry, dividend income) of between 0 (for just one of the eight, because it reinvests all the income from “tenants” into “refurbishments”, which increase the value of the “property”) and 6.5% a year. I keep only a small amount in cash (currently 4%, which is a higher than normal proportion, because one of the companies will be having a rights issue soon and I want to take up at least some of my rights).

I am obliged by law to take an income of 6% every year, but there has always been sufficient cash in the ARF to generate the required income. (I am now in my eighth year of drawdown). I don’t recall ever having to sell a portion of any of my holdings to generate the required cash. Most of the 6% comes from dividends, some from the cash balance in the account, and the remainder of the required 6% from occasional minor adjustments to the holdings; such minor adjustments are normal for an actively managed portfolio and are not done for the purposes of generating cash for the compulsory "income". In this regard, it's important to remember that shares have one big advantage over apartments: I can sell a portion of my holding in a share at any time, and at a low cost; that would not be possible for a portfolio consisting of eight apartments. My eight "apartments" are also in different "cities" (i.e. different businesses, different countries), some are up-market (low dividend yields), some are down-market (high dividend yields).

I think of quoted share prices as the equivalent of estate agents dropping notes in my letterbox every day telling me what price they would buy or sell one of my apartments for on that particular day. Most of the time, I just throw their notes in the bin; sometimes, if they quote a price that is markedly different from the one they quoted yesterday or last week, I may do the equivalent of calling around to the apartment to see if the tenants have smashed it up since I last saw it. Normally they haven't so I just go back to sleep. Occasionally, of course, there is a problem, but they are few and far between, and are more than compensated for by the attractive rental income and the growth in income as years go by.

Against that background, statements such as
100% equities is a sub optimal strategy due to volatility drag
are double Dutch, and references to
my current plan on retirement is to have roughly 15 years' worth of residual expenses in cash and fixed-income investments, with the balance (if there is a balance!) in equities.
make no sense whatsoever, nor does
It all comes down to sequencing of returns; basically, if you’re 100% invested in equities and you start drawing down from your ARF at 4% or 6% and markets tank, you have a problem, because you’re taking money out whilst the capital value of your ARF is falling and that capital never has the chance to recover.
If the property market tanks (remember that my investments are in different "countries", so we should think in terms of property markets rather than a single market) and my tenants in the eight apartments are still paying their rents on time, I don't care a whit about the market tanking; in fact, I may see it as a good opportunity to buy another apartment.
 
Last edited:
Colm, OP refers to a "normal" individual.:rolleyes: Your personal story is nonetheless fascinating but not really a model solution for my recently acquired "clients". You would surely fail your QFA exams with only 8 stocks:eek:
 
Last edited:
Your personal story is nonetheless fascinating but not really a model solution for my recently acquired "clients"
Duke, I agree that my approach is only of interest to high net worth individuals, but the concept is valid irrespective of the size of the pot. My smoothing proposal, which also involves close to 100% investment in "real" assets, is designed for people like your "clients". It gives a very small weighting to current market values, which avoids the stupidity of estate agents pestering them every day.
You would surely fail your QFA exams with only 8 stocks
Agreed also, but I'm not interested in passing QFA exams, only in getting a reasonable return on my investments.
 
Marc - Why not continue the debate here where all the people that use this site can benefit? In my opinion taking this off-line sort of undermines Askaboutmoney.

Colm
My approach is only of interest to high net worth individuals, but the concept is valid irrespective of the size of the pot.

I'm a bit confused by what you wrote here. I'm not sure what the quote above means. Are you saying everything in equities is or is not suitable for "normal" people? If yes, can you also explain why there is no need to be concerned "sequence of returns" risk?

Also, can you also explain whether you are advocating a very small number of shares - again for normal people?

I admit that I'm new to managing my finances (my brother used to do it for me) but from what I've read on other sites, there is such a thing as sequence of return risks and also that holding a small number of shares just adds to that risk. And how realistically could a "normal" person know which stocks to pick when professional managers have a hard time beating benchmark returns in the long haul?
 
I’ve already presented my proposals for ARF’s invested completely in real assets, including equities (quoted and unquoted), property, infrastructure, etc to the Society of Actuaries, the Pensions Management Institute and the IAPF. I am quite happy to present to other fora.
 
A lot of very interesting points and yes, there has been a lack of Advisor input (except Marc). There is no one fixed ARF investment model because there is no one fixed human approach to investing and lifestyle costs. There are a

  1. How old the client is
  2. How old their spouse is
  3. Level of income required
  4. Size of pension fund
  5. Other assets/ sources of income
  6. Capacity for loss (overriding factor)
  7. Attitude to risk
If you have a relatively small ARF, you need to take more investment risk to be able to take a bigger income from the ARF. But these people usually have a low capacity for loss (will a worse case scenario have a detrimental impact on your lifestyle?). As an advisor, I can't tell someone to invest 100% in equities if a 40% fall in value have a detrimental impact on their lifestyle.

High net worth clients can afford to take more investment risk but why should they if they don't need to? If I go through the financial planning process with them with lifelong cashflows, we can calculate the level of risk they need to take with their money. As people get older, they tend not to want to take lots of investment risk with their money as they feel vulnerable with not having the safety net of a regular salary that they can earn. This is part of an advisor's job to manage people's behaviours as well as their money.

Explaining investment risk is another issue. Most people think of it as how much they can lose and never get back. We have to explain about being part owners (no matter how small) of large global companies such as Apple, Google, Disney etc and sharing in the rewards and losses of those companies.

I've just started a trial using a piece of software called Timeline which is marketed as "the sustainable withdrawal rate app". You enter client details, asset allocation, investment amount and withdrawal amount (there's other metrics there too). Based on returns going back to 1900, it shows the worst case, median and best case scenarios. The creator, Abraham Okusanya, is top notch and comes out with great research, so I'm interested to see how the trial goes and whether it is worth using with retirees full time.


Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie
 
Back
Top