Pension Fund strategy

Daragh29

Registered User
Messages
12
Hello,
Looking for a sanity check on my plan,
Currently invested in the work DC pension scheme, I am 45 years old.
I transferred out of the Irish life lifestyle strategy and into the high risk (6) Global Equities Fund.
The lifestyle strategy gradually adjusts the investments to lower and lower risk as I approach retirement.
My logic is that I did not want to deleverage risk and maintain growth.
The plan will be to purchase an ARF on retirement which will then be invested in a similar fund.
If the market drops before retirement and my funds value drops, then surely the fund (ARF) that I am going to purchase will also drop.
Thereby negating the effects of the drop in value.
I do not see the point of missing out on growth when realistically the funds should mirror the market.
Is this plan ok or am I being naive about the risks?
 
Probably worth reading these threads.
 
The plan will be to purchase an ARF on retirement which will then be invested in a similar fund.
If the market drops before retirement and my funds value drops, then surely the fund (ARF) that I am going to purchase will also drop.
Thereby negating the effects of the drop in value.

This doesn't negate the drop in value.

If you are in a Global Equities Fund in your DC Scheme and will be reinvesting in a Global Equities Fund in your ARF, your 'pot' has very much dropped in value, and at a sensitive juncture where it is at its highest value, and peak exposure for Sequence of Returns Risk.

It's your wider financial situation and the other Pillars of your Retirement Planning that will help cushion the drop in value - income from other sources, access to other cash resources whereby you are not sensitive to the drop in value of the lump sum, ability to leave the fund to recover in value (distribution requirements notwithstanding), what you need the ARF to actually fund for etc.

If you were invested mainly in Fixed Income (i.e. bonds) close to the point of retirement and were looking to purchase an Annuity, and bond prices fall close to the point of retirement - at that point the value of your pot will fall, but annuity rates will have increased, thereby helping protect the income potential you were counting on from the 'pot'. The increase in annuity rates will help 'negate' or 'nullify' the drop in value of the retirement savings. This dynamic is not at play with your plan above, assuming I am understanding you correctly. Your lump sum is exposed, and the value of the balance of the pot.
 
It's your wider financial situation and the other Pillars of your Retirement Planning that will help cushion the drop in value - income from other sources, access to other cash resources whereby you are not sensitive to the drop in value of the lump sum, ability to leave the fund to recover in value (distribution requirements notwithstanding) etc.
Good point. And why a Money Makeover may be a better forum in which to discuss this issue properly.
 
My question is not so much will i have enough money, its more of a generic logic.
If you are in a Global Equities Fund in your DC Scheme and will be reinvesting in a Global Equities Fund in your ARF, your 'pot' has very much dropped in value,
This is true, but as the market recovers both funds will increase in value. This thereby protects the income potential.

I'll have a read of the links posted. thank you.
 
My question is not so much will i have enough money, its more of a generic logic.

What you are really asking then is: "Why do people invest less than 100% in the global stock market? The market always recovers from drops, right?"

as the market recovers both funds will increase in value. This thereby protects the income potential.

You are counting on a market recovery to regain the value of your pot, and a quick one to boot. This is no protection whatsoever - your 'protection' then comes from the other pillars of your retirement planning.

Furthermore, the longer any recovery takes, and the more you draw out of an investment pot during this period, leaving a diminished pot to recover its previous value, then the income potential is very much exposed. Larger and larger percentage market increases will be required to restore a pot to its previous value, where such a pot is being drawn down.
 
This reads like you are not going to take any tax free cash at all when you move from pre to post retirement product.
 
Furthermore, the longer any recovery takes, and the more you draw out of an investment pot during this period, leaving a diminished pot to recover its previous value, then the income potential is very much exposed. Larger and larger percentage market increases will be required to restore a pot to its previous value, where such a pot is being drawn down.
This is the key risk to your plan OP. That doesn’t necessarily mean you shouldn’t follow through on your plan, but you really do need to understand Sequence of Return Risk better.

Best online resource on this is EarlyRetirementNow’s safe withdrawal rate series …. very much worth the investment of your time imo! ERN Safe Withdrawal Rate Series

FWIW, I personally would not stay 100% invested in equities at point of retirement (ie when I move from accumulation to decumulation) if I was retiring today with CAPE ratios of 30+ but if it was more like 2010-15 with CAPE’s below 20 then I’d have very little concern about doing so.
 
FWIW, I personally would not stay 100% invested in equities at point of retirement (ie when I move from accumulation to decumulation) if I was retiring today with CAPE ratios of 30+ but if it was more like 2010-15 with CAPE’s below 20 then I’d have very little concern about doing so.
As @AAAContributor mentioned a few times, a person's wider/non-pension assets/savings/investments and their ability to ride out volatility, probably need to be factored in here too. I'm late 50s, early retired, taking a small income from some of my pensions (splitting into smaller PRSA contracts as needed), and remain basically 100% in equities (MSCI World Index or equivalent), but I have significant other non-pension assets that allow me to deal with significant volatility if/when it arises. Without those non-pension assets I might be more cautious about the all equities approach...
 
Assuming that you continue working and paying PRSI, then you'll get the state pension, which can help offset the volatility.
I also moved out of the lifestyling approach in my mid forties, just before the de-risking kicked in. Currently in 100% equities (MSCI World or equivalent) and happy enough with that for now, though I may revisit it when I get into my sixties.
Do you have savings outside of your pension? If they are in fixed term or demand deposit accounts, then that also helps offset volatility.
 
am I being naive about the risks?

Something to also reflect on with your financial planning is the psychological aspects of accumulation (i.e. the pre-retirement phase of life focused on saving and investment) and decumulation (i.e. the post-retirement phase of life managing those savings to last through retirement).

During the accumulation stage, when you are building up your retirement assets and have a good distance to go to accessing the pot (taking your lump sum and transferring the balance to an ARF) and using it as a replacement source of income, you can be more sanguine about market drops and even delight in them, as potentially "stocks are on sale". Furthermore, you are still earning a salary and so are not dependent on the assets yet and can be stoic about market moves and respond to them with equanimity.

This all changes when you are in the decumulation stage; by definition, there's no more earned income coming in to the household. Where previously you benefited from market drops in the accumulation stage when retirees were selling off assets to provide income and you were on the other side of that trade picking up cheaper and cheaper assets; that now flips, where instead you are now selling assets at depressed prices. If you also operate with the paradigm that the market always bounces back, how nervous would you be or how likely to panic if that recovery took longer than you would like or previously understood, and meanwhile the car needs replacing and the house needs a new roof and you are dipping more and more into the pot?

Also, to reiterate the point about a market recovery after a drop - if you look at the graphs we are all used to (market dips and subsequent recoveries), it comes at it from the approach of a buy and hold investor. So, if the index level is at 100 and drops to 60 (40% drop) over a period of, let's say 2 years, and subsequently recovers to 100; it takes a 67% increase from the index level of 60 to get back to the previous level of 100.

However, if one overlays another line on that chart with a portfolio value (which requires an income to be drawn out of it, say 5p.a.), after 2 years, where the buy and hold portfolio is at 60, the retirement portfolio may be at ~50, requiring a 100% increase from 50 to get back to a level of 100. So, if the paradigm one operates is that a 67% increase has happened before and will happen again, and indeed does deliver a 67% rally, the retirement portfolio is falling behind (value of only 83).

One other headwind is that if you have a pension pot worth 100 all in the market and close to retirement it drops to 60 and you have to access it at that point, then 25% of the value of it may be due to you as a lump sum (15) with the balance (45) going into an ARF. If you have the financial means to recycle the lump sum back into global equities, it will have to work that bit harder now that it is outside a pension wrapper. In the accumulation stage, the tax benefits afforded to a pension structure enhanced the ability of the monies to compound, but that advantage is not present if investments are now subject to income tax, CGT, LAET, deemed disposal provisions etc.

Again, this is not a general logic question and is very personal to your financial situation. If your retirement savings are all gravy whereby your wider financial situation is in top shape: no debt, no dependents to still provide for, a full Irish State Pension (or maybe a UK one as well if you worked there), a spouse with their own pension provision, a frugal approach to spending, rental properties etc then the above discussion is all a bit academic.

As the Greeks say, "Know Thyself."
 
and remain basically 100% in equities (MSCI World Index or equivalent), but I have significant other non-pension assets that allow me to deal with significant volatility if/when it arises. Without those non-pension assets I might be more cautious about the all equities approach...
Agreed, but just to clarify that when I say 100% equities I literally mean all of your portfolio (minus PPR), not just your pension plan.

A state pension already provides a certain floor of security, but not diversification in the true context… as in, I cannot draw more from my state pension this year because the markets are down and I don’t want to sell low.
 
Back
Top