Why RISK really matters in retirement

So you need to be doubly careful with your money at this stage

Older couple in car

This updated extract about investment risk is from my first book, ‘Who can you trust about money?’ (2013)

It also appeared in Investor’s Chronicle in 2014. See here

Since that time, a lot of stock markets around the world have climbed to historical highs (on a valuation basis) so it’s right to revisit the issue now.

In this Insight you’ll learn:

Why YOUR 'effective' investment returns may be VERY different to the returns on the funds in which you invest!Click To Tweet

Yes, I know, that sounds impossible, but stick with me and all will become clear 😉

The effective returns on your funds depend, to a large degree, on how the fund price moves over time.

It’s not simply about where the fund price ends up!

It’s also true that this, most curious, feature of investing shows up (in opposite ways) both when you’re saving (putting money into investments) and when you’re taking money out for income.

Now, we’ll explore the ‘savings’ side of this riddle another time.

And that will likely be of particular interest to younger folk – who are accumulating their savings.

But right now, let’s explore the retirement income situation.

Introducing Mrs Green and Mr Garnet

To bring this to life, I’ll compare the experiences of two fictitious investors, Mrs Green and Mr Garnet.

We’ll assume that they each saved up throughout their working lives to build a £100,000 savings pot by their 60th birthday.

And let’s assume that they both then invested those savings into (mostly) stock-market-based funds to deliver their retirement income.

The only significant difference between Mrs Green’s and Mr Garnet’s investments was the time (in history) when they made them.

Mrs Green reached the age of 60 in the early 1980s while Mr Garnet turned 60 in 1972.

Each of them was told that when they reached 60, it would be stock-market-based funds that would offer the best prospects for growth.

Indeed, they were told that such funds could easily double in value (before inflation) over the medium term of, say, 10 years.

And, if you “do the math” (as they say in the US of A) you’ll see that a doubling in price over 10 years equates to average growth of 7.2 per cent a year. That’s the trusty old rule of 72 at work

And many would have thought it reasonable to expect such returns at those times.

So, based on this ‘growth assumption’ they each decided to withdraw 7.2 per cent (£7,200) as a fixed sum from their funds each year.

Obviously, if their growth expectations turned out correct – then the fund growth would keep their original capital intact.

Of course, the growth on these funds would need to exceed 7.2% p.a. in order to cover the many layers of charges on this type of product.

But if you’ll forgive me, we’ll keep financial product charges out of this Insight. You can read more about the horrendous affect of charges over here.

Let’s just keep this simple for now by looking only at this one (Pound Cost Savaging) issue and assume that this growth of 7.2% p.a. is net of product charges

With me so far?

Good, so, here comes the really curious bit.

The (apparent) good news for both of these investors was that the price of their funds did indeed achieve the expected 7.2% p.a. average return over the subsequent 10 years.

However, the price of their funds achieved that average return along very different paths.

And that left them with VERY different outcomes

Mrs Green’s experience

Mr’s Green’s fund, starting at a unit price of 100p, rocketed up by 50 per cent in the first year.

After that, it rose more slowly but steadily, by just over 3 per cent a year for the following nine years, to reach 200p, double the original price.

She was pleased with her investment.

She’d taken all her income payments (of £7,200 each year) and also saw her capital grow to £116,500 by the end of 10 years.

Indeed, this outcome seemed quite magical to Mrs Green. Her fund’s price had only averaged 7.2 per cent a year over the period, and that she’d withdrawn that full percentage amount each year.

She was amazed that she was in profit and was delighted to tell all her friends of her experience.

Mr Garnet’s experience

Now, remember that Mr Garnet took out the same amount of income from his fund as Mrs Green over his first 10 years of retirement.

And his fund achieved the same (expected) growth rate (of 7.2 per cent a year on average) over his first 10 years of taking income.

Unfortunately, for Mr Garnet, the price of his fund took a very different path to that of Mr’s Green. And, from a start price of 100p, crashed by 50 per cent in year one.

The fund price did, however, recover strongly after that initial fall. And it grew steadily (by nearly 17% p.a.) over the remaining nine years – to claw its way back to 200p

So, as I said, above, it did end up achieving the same average growth as Mrs Green’s fund. The price just followed a very different path.

The problem for Mr Garnet was that the first-year price crash took his investment value down from £100,000 to £50,000.

And that was before his first withdrawal of £7,200 which took his fund value down to £42,800!

So, the subsequent ‘stellar’ fund growth (of c. 17% p.a.) was barely enough to keep pace with his further annual withdrawals of £7,200.

And, after 10 years, his fund was worth just £41,500

(about one-third of Mrs Green’s final fund value)

A thought about survivorship bias

Mr Garnet kept very quiet about his experience and who can blame him . . .  no one likes to talk about losing a lot of money like that.

And that’s what we typically find.

The ‘winners’ speak up about their wonderful investment returns – whilst the losers keep quiet about their losses.

You might have noticed similar things going on right now with ‘Bitcoin’  – notice anyone boasting about their losses?

By the way, this, natural human behaviour which distorts our view of the world is well known to behavioural scientists.

It’s called ‘survivorship’ bias and you’ll come across it in many walks of life.

‘Losers’ tend to be hidden from site.

The thing is, if we don’t hear the bad stories we might not bother trying to understand these investment risks.

We might be tempted to think that winning is almost certain in the markets – just as long as you “take a long term view” (as many ‘experts’ will tell you)

And we might ignore this potentially ‘crushing’ (price path) issue.

Please don’t do that.

Okay, but surely Mr Garnet was just unlucky

Well, he was unlucky for sure . . .

. . . but it could have been even worse for him

Let’s imagine that his fund had not bounced back quite so well after the initial fall.

Let’s assume that his fund price grew by, say, 8 per cent a year after the initial crash of 50 per cent.

That would have brought the price back to its starting level of 100p at the end of 10 years.

And whilst that’s a rare scenario in markets – it is perfectly possible.

Take a look at Japan after 1989.

So, with a nice steady 8% p.a. growth (after the initial fall)  . . .

. . . how much do you think Mr Garnet would have had left in his pension after 10 years?

Well, the horrifying answer is . . .


That’s right . . . his fund would have run out before he’d taken all his planned withdrawals.

Of course, he’d have enjoyed a few income payments (totalling £67,670) before running out of money.

But I suspect he’d have been ‘angry’ to see his fund of £100,000 run down to nothing over a few years.

After all, he’d been told that it would last him for life.


Well, as I said at the top, it’s not always the average total return on a fund over time that determines your personal investment experience.

What really matters, when we take regular withdrawals from our investments, is the path of the fund price over time.

Our personal experience will be:

Fantastic, if prices rise steeply at the beginning of our investment period and then remain steady or gently rising in the later years.

Disastrous, if prices collapse initially, even if they eventually recover to the originally expected level.

And yes, if fund prices follow a path between these two extremes, then the outcome will also be something in-between.

A great many people have been caught in exactly Mr Garnet’s predicament at various times over the years.

And I suspect that a great many more are about to suffer a similar fate.

Irreparable damage can be inflicted on our funds if we take ‘heavy’ withdrawals from investments that are shrinking in value due to stock market falls.

Strong market recoveries are often not enough to recover our funds.

So, you need to do something to mitigate this (market timing) risk when you’re about to start taking income from an investment portfolio.

And that something, in a word phrase is called “long term phased investing into markets”

It’s something we’ll come back to another time.

In the mean time remember that someone else’s experience does not guarantee yours.

So, please take good-quality guidance and advice on your retirement income options.

And let me warn you, when it comes to this (retirement income) issue . . .

. . . really good advice at a fair price, is difficult to find.

I know, I’ve done the searching for some of my coaching clients.

All the best for now


Please share your thoughts in the comments below. You can log in with your social media or DISQUS account OR to “post as a guest” – just add your name and that option will pop up.

For more ideas on money and life

Join my Facebook group here

join FB Group

Or sign up for my newsletter

With which you can also have my ‘5 Steps for planning your Financial Freedom’

and the first chapter of my book, ‘Who misleads you about money?’

All free of course 🙂

Turn your thinking upside down

Discuss this article