The Investment HabitThe boring parts, done for thirty years

Drawing an Income

Sequence risk is the retirement problem nobody plans for

Two portfolios with identical average returns can produce very different outcomes depending on when the bad years arrive.

A close-up image of a person's hand holding a jar full of coins labeled 'Savings'.
Photograph by Towfiqu barbhuiya via Pexels
General information. This is journalism, not personalised financial advice. Figures, rates and rules change and vary by country — check current terms before acting. How we work.

This is less a set of instructions about sequence of returns risk than an argument, and it is worth saying so at the start.

The argument in brief

  • Poor returns early in drawdown do disproportionate damage.
  • Holding a cash buffer avoids selling into a falling market.
  • Flexible withdrawals materially improve sustainability.

Order matters once you are withdrawing

While accumulating, the order of returns is largely irrelevant; only the compounded total matters. Once you are selling units to live on, a fall early in retirement permanently reduces the base that later returns apply to. This is why two retirees with the same average return can end up in very different positions.

The buffer approach

Holding one to three years of spending in cash or short-dated assets means you need not sell equities during a decline. The buffer is replenished from growth in good years rather than on a fixed schedule. It costs some expected return in exchange for removing the worst mechanism of failure.

Flexibility is worth more than precision

Retirees who reduce withdrawals modestly during poor years dramatically improve the sustainability of a portfolio. A rigid inflation-linked withdrawal is the assumption behind most safe-withdrawal-rate research and is not how people actually behave.

Even small, temporary reductions have a large effect on the arithmetic.

Withdrawal rules are guides, not laws

Rules of thumb about safe withdrawal rates come from specific historical periods, markets and asset mixes. They vary considerably by country and by the fee level assumed, which is frequently unrealistic. Treating them as a planning starting point rather than a guarantee is the appropriate use.

Guaranteed income changes the problem

State pensions, annuities and defined-benefit entitlements cover baseline spending regardless of markets. The larger that guaranteed floor, the less sequence risk matters for the remainder. Deciding how much of your essential spending should be guaranteed is arguably the central retirement decision.

The takeaway

Cover essential spending with something that does not depend on markets, and keep a buffer for the rest.

The version you keep doing is the version that works.

Questions readers ask

How large should a cash buffer be?

Commonly one to three years of spending net of guaranteed income. Larger buffers cost more in expected return; smaller ones expose you to forced selling.

Is an annuity worth considering?

For covering essential spending with certainty, it addresses a risk that a portfolio cannot. Whether it suits you depends on your other guaranteed income and your circumstances.

Drawing an Incomedrawdownsequence riskretirementwithdrawal
Alastair Nguyen
Editor, The Investment Habit

Alastair edits The Investment Habit and believes most investing content is entertainment sold as advice.

Also by Alastair Nguyen

Drawing an Income

Dividends are not free money

A dividend reduces the value of the holding by roughly the amount paid. Treating it as income separate from capital leads to bad…

Alastair Nguyen··2 min read