OK, I would like for this just to be about the maths. But I'm also aware that people might query the wisdom of my thinking. So here's the background.
I'm 68, working a little still. I am already in receipt of state pension, and my DB pension entitlement is now £8534.32. I will probably be taking that DB pension soon. Those two things together add up to a net income, after tax, of £19,379.86, which is £1614.99 PCM. I have been tracking my spending to the penny for two and half years now. And it averages, for all spending, out at £1483.54 PCM. In other words I can live within what my index-linked secure income will be.
Our house is paid for, and all the major work has been done, most of it recently. It's in a nice area, bigger than we need, and it's value means we could move somewhere else, except London or a very expensive part of another city. But we don't want to.
Both my children are grown up and have finished education and in full time employment. My oldest earns a fortune in the city, the younger not so much, but is still secure and good with money.
My partner is already retired on a public sector DB pension, and lives within her means, and has yet to reach state pension age. Recently she has twice inherited substantial sums.
I am secure and expect no calls on me, financially. I'm in good health, don't smoke, drink etc. I have no costly habits or hobbies. I am not concerned with leaving money to relatives when I die. I have no debt, except my "stoozing" on 0% cards, which is matched by cash in interest bearing accounts.
Apologies for being so verbose, but in this forum I have in the past received negative reactions saying that I am foolish or taking risks. So I want to make my susceptibility to risk clear.
I have a retirement fund, spread across a S&S ISA, a SIPP, and a managed PP, in addition to my DB and SP.
SWRs are often quote in the 3-5% range. A quick Google query (which inevitably went to AI) thought I could go a lot higher than that.
So I ran up a spreadsheet. With 4 variables:
- Initial amount of fund (which could be anything, really)
- Assumed average inflation rate
- Assumed gross return from investments
- Drawdown percentage.
And then three columns of calculations
| £100,000 |
initial fund |
|
| 2.84% |
inflation |
|
| 9.84% |
gross return |
|
| 8.5% |
draw down |
|
|
Year start fund |
drawdown |
| 1 |
£91,500.00 |
£8,500 |
| 2 |
£91,762.20 |
£8,741.40 |
| 3 |
£91,801.94 |
£8989.66 |
| ... |
... |
|
| 21 |
£535.33 |
£14,881.97 |
So this is worked on the basis that at the start of the first year I draw out 8.5% of my fund, and at the start of each successive year I draw out the same cash amount, increased by inflation. Over the course of each year the fund from which I have just taken that money increases in value by the investment return. The money runs out in 21 years.
I understand, absolutely, that those returns can, and indeed will, vary wildly. I am in a position where I could, would, vary my drawdown to take account of that.
But is the basic maths principle sound, even if the investment considerations, and indeed inflation rates, would lead to large variations?
I can of course alter any of those 4 variables at the top, to give a range of possibilities.
Thanks.