The Easiest Retirement Choice

Simplifying What Matters When Saving for Retirement

Photo: Unsplash

Retirement.  The Nobel Laureate William Sharpe called it the “nastiest, hardest problem in finance.”  And it is.  Between deciding how much to save and spend throughout your life, you also have to make guesses about the future.  What will inflation be?  How long will I live?  What kind of returns will assets provide?  And the list goes on.

Despite this complicated process, the financial aspect of retirement planning boils down to three things:

  1. How Much You Save Before Retirement.  This is a function of the number of years you decide to work, your income, and your savings.
  2. Asset Allocation.  This is a function of how you invest your savings and how much risk you want to take.
  3. How Much You Spend in Retirement.  This is a function of your total savings and your future spending, inflation, asset returns, and lifespan.

This might seem daunting, but, if you make just a few simplifying assumptions, you can eliminate most of these choices.  For example, you have no control over future asset returns and inflation and limited control over your lifespan.  So, if we assume those are out of our hands, then retirement comes down to your savings rate and asset allocation.  That’s it.

But, even these two choices are very different.  Your savings rate is constantly in flux, being impacted by financial decisions small and large throughout your life.  You can stay in or you can eat out.  You can take transit or you take Uber.  You can buy or you can rent.  All of these choices, and more, will have varying degrees of impact on your retirement success.

However, your asset allocation (i.e. how much risk you take) is one decision that you make that will have the greatest impact on your finances for the least amount of effort.  Because all of those thousands of other financial decisions that you will make across decades will require far more time and energy than deciding what you invest in.  Because once you are invested, the compounding should take care of itself.

This is why asset allocation is by far the easiest retirement choice you can make.  Let me illustrate this with a simulation.  To start, we need to assume the following:

  • Before Retirement
    • You work and save money for 40 years (i.e. assume you start saving at 25 and retire at 65).
    • Your annual income starts at $50,000 and grows with inflation.
    • You save X% (this will vary) of your income each month and re-invest it in some portfolio.
    • Your saved money goes into a portfolio consisting of some mix of U.S. Stocks and Bonds (this will vary).
  • In Retirement
    • You live for 25 years (i.e. assume you retire at 65 and die at 90).
    • Your spending is identical to what is was when you were working (constant in real dollars).  So if you saved 10% of your income each year, this implies you lived off of 90% of your income.  In retirement you would be spending 90% of your final income (indexed to inflation) each year.
    • Your nest egg is invested in whichever portfolio you invested in before retirement (this will vary).

If we were to start this simulation in 1926 and go through every possible 65 year period (i.e. 40 working years + 25 retirement years) and finish in 2018, we would have 28 different retirement simulations we could test (thanks to Michael Batnick for the idea).  Of course this is simplified, but it will illustrate my main point.  First I will walk through an example of one simulation and then present the full results.

Example Walkthrough

Let’s say you started working in 1926 with an income of $50,000 (yes this was a lot of money then, but the starting income is arbitrary for this).  By the time you retired in 1966, your real income was identical, but your nominal income would have grown to $89,000 due to inflation.  If you saved 10% a year over this time period, you would have saved a total of ~$240,000.  If you had invested in:

  • 100% Bonds you would have $382,000 when you started retirement.
  • 60/40 Stock/Bond you would have $1.6 million when you started retirement.
  • 100% Stocks you would have $3.7 million when you started retirement.

In your first year of retirement you would have spent $80,000.  This represents 90% of your final income (i.e. 100% – 10% savings rate).  With such spending, your portfolio would run out of money in 5 years with 100% Bonds, in less than 20 years with 60/40 Stock/Bond, and would not run out in 25 years with 100% Stocks.

This example shows the power of asset allocation to have a dramatic impact your chance of financial success in retirement.  That one decision made near the beginning of your working life (and stuck to throughout) can have an impact equal to your savings rate with far less effort.

Full Results

Now, let’s do the same simulation for all 28 periods we have available.  Below is a chart of the portfolio values at the start of retirement (for the 100% Bond, 60/40 Stock Bond, and 100% Stock portfolios) based on the year you started retirement for each simulation.  Note that the leftmost points (i.e. retire in 1966) were covered in the example above:

final retirement portfolio value by retirement year and portfolio mix

As you can see, the asset allocation decision can make a large impact on your final portfolio value.  The spread you see between the 100% Stock portfolio and the 100% Bond portfolio shrinks over time because of how those assets performed over the years.  The main takeaway is that stocks completely dominated bonds for most of the twentieth century.  For example, bonds did quite poorly from the 1940s-1970s, but started to do much better in the 1980s-1990s:

bond and stock market performance by decade

These disparities in returns will also show up in the simulations when looking at the number of years until you run out of money.  The plot below has color/shape for each portfolio and the number of years until that portfolio ran out of money based on the retirement start year.  If a particular point is at the top of the chart (i.e. 25 years) that means that simulation did not run out of money.

For example, as I highlighted in the “Example Walkthrough” above, if you started retirement in 1966, your portfolio would run out of money in 5 years with 100% Bonds, in less than 20 years with 60/40 Stock/Bond, and would not run out in 25 years with 100% Stocks.  This plot is just expanded to show if you retired in 1967, 1968, and so on:

final retirement portfolio value by retirement year and portfolio mix

But, we can take this a step further by varying the savings rate over time (from 5% to 30%) and watching how that affects the number of years until the portfolios run out of money:

final retirement portfolio value by retirement year and portfolio mix with different savings rates


As you can see, your savings rate will make a big difference in whether you run out of money in retirement, but so does your asset allocation.  With a savings rate as low as 13%, the 60/40 portfolio never runs out of money in any of the simulations.  Compare this to the 100% Bond portfolio which still runs out of money in some cases with a 30% savings rate!

However, moving your savings rate upward is no easy task.  It requires decreased spending or increased income, both things that are not necessarily easy to do.  On the flip side, it is also not necessarily easy to bear more risk in your portfolio (i.e. going from 100% Bonds to a 60/40 portfolio), but as Corey Hoffstein so famously repeats:

Risk cannot be destroyed, only transformed.

So, by taking less risk now (i.e. 100% Bonds) you actually take more risk later (i.e. running out of money in retirement).   So the question is: Do you want to work your butt off to increase your savings rate, or would you rather take the easy way out and take a little more short-term risk?

The Hardest Choice in Retirement

Despite all of the discussion of the financial choices you need to make for retirement, it’s actually the non-financial aspects of retirement that are the hardest to figure out.  As I have written before, the most important decision you can make in your retirement is how you are going to spend your time, not your money.  Many people end up retired and lose their sense of purpose despite having sufficient financial resources.

Though this may seem unrelated, this is also my biggest problem with universal basic income (including sovereign wealth funds). These systems provide money, but they don’t provide any sense of fulfillment for those that receive that money.  With the recent increase in deaths of despair in the U.S., figuring out how to give people income and meaning may be one of the most important problems we can try to solve in society.

Though I don’t have an easy answer for how to help you find meaning in your life, I recommend that you create something and give back to a community.  Also consider reading How to Retire Happy, Wild, and Free, a retirement book that can help anyone tackle the issue of meaning before and during retirement.  It’s the best retirement book I have ever read and it has zero discussion of money.

Lastly, for all of those that have been following along, you may have noticed that my most recent posts have far more data and far fewer stories.  I am going back to my roots and hope you stay along for the ride.  As always, thank you for reading!

➤ You can follow Of Dollars And Data via Twitter, Instagram, or my weekly newsletter (Sign up here!)

This is post 113. Any code I have related to this post can be found here with the same numbering:

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Full Disclosure: Nothing on this site should ever be considered to be advice, research or an invitation to buy or sell any securities, please see my Terms & Conditions page for a full disclaimer. is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to and affiliated sites.

35 Responses

  1. Anonymous commented on Feb 26

    This post and the last were great! Glad you are putting some more data into the mix going forward!

  2. Anonymous commented on Feb 27

    Unlike Nick, Michael Batnick, & Ben Carlson, the wealth management industry overplays retirement nest egg requirements and underplays spending in retirement. On both sides of retirement, Fear, Uncertainty, & Doubt (FUD) are the typical investment advisor’s best friends. Odds are, by a considerable margin, that by following the financial advisor’s typical mantra on 10-15% saving & 4% rule retirement spending, most of us will avoid living life to the fullest. Yeah, yeah, yeah…despite sequence of return risk.

    Hardly a coincidence that generously spreading FUD, is aligned with financial advisor’s best interest. Over-hyping saving and pitching microscopic spending rates is the yellow brick road to the financial advisor’s holy grail — robust levels of Assets Under Management.

    For those of us of moderate wealth, minimizing fixed costs in retirement is critical. Feel like I am following a retiree proven path as follows: 60/40 AA, indexing, no mortgage, minimize real estate taxes (and/or condo fees), pay cash for most everything, no subsidizing of adult children, minimization of investing fees, and tilt spending priorities to experiences vs. assets.

    Not interested in dying broke, but am committed to getting most out of my life and my life savings.

  3. Anonymous commented on Feb 27

    There is an omission in your example: Social Security income.

    Your $50,000 income will increase to, say, $100,000 by retirement age. You’re living on $90,000. Fine.

    When you retire you expect to live on $90,000, too, or $7,500 per month. But you’ll start to draw Social Security, Our example guy will probably receive about $3,000 monthly from Social Security. His spouse may receive $2,300 or more. The result is that they only need to draw $2,200, not $7,500, from their retirement investments.

    That $380,000 in bonds will last a LOT longer than the 5 or 6 years stated above,.

  4. Anonymous commented on Mar 01

    Where is the most recent data lines on your charts? Not being critical, just curious how the last 20 years have played out in relation to your pre-2000 charts.

  5. Anonymous commented on Mar 01

    In the animated gif regarding savings rates and their effects on how long till you run out of money, is the retirement spending being reduced proportionately as well? For example, if someone is saving 30% of their income, are you adjusting the retirement spending to reflect the recreation of only 70% of their final income?

    Also, is it potentially unfair/unrealistic to consider a flat real income over time? Even if the amount that is saved (in percentage terms) stays constant, a retiree would have undersaved if they wanted to continue into retirement at their final income (minus savings). This problem affects a lot of people in their 50s and 60s that get promoted and have a substantial increase in compensation within a few years of retirement.

  6. Anonymous commented on Mar 02

    Love the data, Nick. Keep it coming.

    Several things stand out to me.

    First, bonds are supposedly there to protect your assets during times of inflation or market downturns. Seems like they only did that in the most extreme of bear markets, during the Great Depression. That scenario is unlikely, and of course most people would have bigger worries than retirement funding, so money is still better off in stocks, or at least a mix.

    Second, if you are starting late in life with building your retirement fund you are best served by going all in with stocks (through indexing of course). I never had much savings, but now early in my second career at a later age, a high earning career, I am saving aggressively (30%+) and investing aggressively. This data gives me hope that my efforts will be enough.

    Last, I don’t think universal basic income is about retirement, it’s about giving the poorest the ability to better survive at some basic level, lifting up the floor, if you will. I’m sure some (many?) conservatives would be aghast at this, but people pulling themselves up by their bootstraps is somewhat of a myth for those born poor who have worse health at birth and lower opportunity than the bulk of people. Although I am not entirely sold on UBI, I will keep an open mind.
    Thanks again.

  7. Anonymous commented on Mar 04

    There is some interesting results of the small scale results of UBI ‘experiments’ … turns out people don’t need work to have purpose when the stigma of work = everything is removed. US White Blue Collar males are killing themselves because they are 1) broke and 2) don’t have jobs in a work = everything environment. Deadly combination.

  8. Anonymous commented on Mar 04

    Would the modeling would seem more relevant if the start point were not set at what would have been a really good income at the time?

    How about starting with the same relative income, ie, not with a constant dollar figure but with a constant relative income, say … median?

    A person making $50k in 1926 and saving $5k a year front-loads your model, doesn’t it?

  9. Anonymous commented on Mar 04

    $50,000 in 1926 had the same purchasing power as $701,768.15 in 2019, according to one of the inflation calculators on the web.

    Adjusted for inflation, $4,000.00 in 1926 is equal to $56,141.45 in 2019.

    Is the modeling realistic for someone earning $50,000 today?

    • Nick Maggiulli commented on Mar 04

      The starting salary is completely irrelevant in this simulation. All that matters is the savings rate. You can set the starting salary to $10,000 and it moves the absolute numbers but not the relative numbers or the number of years it takes to retire (assuming the same savings rate). I hope this makes sense.

  10. Anonymous commented on Mar 04

    Great post, one thing I’m struggling with myself with regards to asset allocation, are “lost decades”. Performance returns are essentially a sliding window, say I’m 100% stocks, I could just end up being unlucky to have started my investing in say 1999, only to break-even around 2008, and to break even again in 2013.
    So are 10yrs holding period not long enough?
    Basically I’m constrained by a human lifetime, at some point I might have to be a forced seller. So I think some bonds (or something else?) make sense, but question becomes how much? 10%? 20%? 40%?

  11. Anonymous commented on Mar 05

    Great post, Nick. Lot of food for thought.

  12. Anonymous commented on Mar 08

    I love how you simplify things, remove noise and zoom in on key concepts. One of the best blog sites online.

  13. Anonymous commented on Mar 08

    Very valuable post, as always.

    Of course I’m staying for the ride but HEY! Your stories are great and you can definitely combine the efficiently with the data! I look forward to enjoying your awesome stories as well.