Connect with us

Uncategorized

The three-bucket strategy for building a retirement portfolio

What’s the best way to build a robust retirement portfolio that can ride out market fluctuations and provide steady and dependable income? Back in the 1980s, renowned U.S. financial strategist, Harold Evensky, devised what we believe is a smart appro…

Published

on

What’s the best way to build a robust retirement portfolio that can ride out market fluctuations and provide steady and dependable income? Back in the 1980s, renowned U.S. financial strategist, Harold Evensky, devised what we believe is a smart approach. He called it the ‘Bucket strategy’.

I grew up in the 1970s and 80s and the one thing I remember – apart from the flared brown corduroy jeans – was the measurably higher interest rates available to those living on their retirement savings. In 1981, for example, while inflation was admittedly rampant, the average interest rate for six-month term deposits was 11.6 per cent per annum. The rate was high enough (and prices for everything significantly cheaper than today) for many retirees to experience a reasonable, if not enjoyable, lifestyle without needing to “risk” their capital or dip into their retirement savings.

Sadly, those rates (and the sartorial elegance of the era) are a fond but now distant memory. Today, investors approaching retirement must be understandably nervous about how much they need to have accumulated to meet their lifestyle objectives, acknowledging that some of the saved capital may need to be drawn down in addition to the income earned.

The simple fact is that since those days of heady yields on cash, interest rates have plummeted, and the process has amassed what appear to be insurmountable hurdles for retirees.

For those without millions in super, and even for those with, this blog will provide an insight into a framework for building a retirement portfolio, while featuring a product that has the potential to, at least partially, alleviate the investment and income concerns for some retirees.

Enter the “Bucket Methodology” in retirement asset management, a brainchild of the renowned U.S. financial strategist Harold Evensky. This strategy offers a blueprint for retirees to maximise their financial assets and the chances for a stable retirement income long after retirement.

Some retirees are fixated on income-centric models. This may, however, inadvertently push them towards riskier securities. The Bucket Methodology represents an alternative to this, and is grounded in a simple, yet potent, principle: Funds allocated for imminent expenses should remain in cash, irrespective of the yields – diminutive or otherwise.

Conversely, assets which are set aside for the more distant future can be diversified across a broad spectrum of longer-term investments. The immediate cash reservoir in Bucket One ensures retirees have a sufficient financial cushion to withstand and ride out the inevitable volatility in their long-term portfolio.

Time period Investment type
1. Short Bucket One: A cash bucket. This bucket is designed to meet immediate income needs for two years to five years. The capital in this bucket is for spending on those needs.

2. Medium

Bucket Two: Less conservative than Bucket One but more conservative than Bucket three and offering medium term stability to fund Bucket one’s future years.

3. Long

Bucket Three: The growth bucket invested more aggressively to provide the opportunity to grow savings and ensure longevity. Returns in this bucket will vary more than the other two buckets.

The Bucket strategy helps to endure, survive, and thrive amid a risk referred to as sequencing risk, which is the risk of a big fall in asset values early in the investment journey. 

Understandably, and without gainful employment, many retirees are required to take fixed dollar withdrawals (pension drawdowns) regularly from their retirement portfolio. If the retirement portfolio is entirely invested in volatile securities, retirees could experience the opposite of the ‘dollar-cost averager’ when prices fall.

At lower prices, a retiree would be forced to sell more units simply because more units are required to meet their minimum pension payment obligation. And then after those units are sold, the remaining portfolio is smaller. With fewer units, a greater burden is now placed on the remainder of the portfolio to recover the losses.

It is, therefore, essential that large losses early in the investment journey are avoided or the risk at least mitigated.

And that’s where Evenksy’s three bucket strategy works so well. Welcome to the retirement bucket list!

Bucket One: The immediate financial buffer

Central to the Bucket strategy is the need to quarantine from volatile assets the cash needed to cover short-term living expenses for a period of two to five years – the estimated time required for markets to recover. In a climate of diminished cash yields, this may appear foolish. Still, its primary purpose is to offer a solid foundation for covering immediate expenses not met by other income channels.

To ascertain the requisite amount for Bucket One, begin by outlining projected annual expenditures and deduct any assured, non-portfolio income such as pensions. The residual figure provides a clear indication of the funds required to be sourced from Bucket One. A prudent investor might decide to double this number to gauge their cash reserve requirement more conservatively for Bucket One.

Those wary of locking in substantial cash at punitively low yields, might contemplate dividing Bucket One into two portions: real cash covering a year’s expenses and additional funds in slightly more lucrative alternatives, such as term deposits. It would be judicious for retirees to also incorporate a contingency fund within Bucket One to cater to unforeseen costs.

Subsequent buckets: expanding the strategy

While retirees have flexibility in designing their unique bucket arrangements and asset distributions, one suggested model comprises of two supplementary buckets:

Bucket Two:

In this paradigm, this Bucket embodies five or more years of anticipated expenses, emphasising income generation and stability. It is predominantly made up of robust income-producing assets, including a selection of high-yielding investments such as infrastructure funds or equities, Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITS), hybrid securities, fixed interest investments or a private credit fund (see Box 1, for wholesale investors). The returns from this segment can be utilised to replenish Bucket One when necessary (and sometimes Bucket Three if the opportunity presents itself).

Box 1. The Aura High Yield SME Fund

The Aura High Yield SME Fund, for wholesale investors only, is a private credit fund. Investors buy units in a fund, and the manager selects loan originators through whom the funds are loaned to Australian corporates. There are more than 10,000 small, secured loans, across many different industries with an average duration of just four months.

The Fund has been running for over six years, and during that period, the Fund has returned investors an average of 9.60 per cent per annum to 31 July 2023, paid monthly, with zero loss of investor capital.

Since 2017, that’s been a better return than the stock market without any of the volatility. For some investors, this could be an appropriate vehicle into which some funds for bucket 2 could be allocated.

Aura High Yield SME Fund returns to 31 July 2023

Aura High Yield SME Fund returns to 31 July 2023

Aura High Yield SME Fund comparison

As you can see from the below graph, the blue line represents the Aura High Yield SME Fund with distributions reinvested, in comparison to the S&P/ASX 200 Accumulation Index as seen by the red line.

Alternatively, you can compare the green line, which is the Aura High Yield SME fund with distributions paid as income, against the S&P/ASX 200 Index (which excludes dividends) in the purple line.

Aura High Yield SME Fund Comparison Graph

Source: S&P/ASX 200 (^AXJO) Adjusted Close Historical Data and S&P Global – S&P Australia High Yield Corporate Bond Index Historical Data.

Performance net of fees and expenses (1) Inception date 1-Aug-17, (2) Benchmark is RBA cash rate plus 5% p.a.

Returns assume reinvestment of all distributions. Past performance is not a reliable indication of future performance.

Bucket Three:

Representing the most extended horizon, this bucket is primarily composed of large and small capitalisation equity funds – both domestic and global – and alternative investments such as long/short funds and private equity funds. While promising the most substantial long-term gains, this bucket also bears the potential for considerable losses due to its higher volatility. The presence of Buckets One and Two is crucial to deter premature withdrawal from Bucket Three during market downturns.

During downturns, if returns from Bucket Two allow it, and if spending from Bucket One permits it, Bucket Three investments might be subsidised from Bucket Two.

Re-balancing the buckets

At some point each year, the buckets are rebalanced with the objective of starting a new year with two to five years’ lifestyle income needs in Bucket One.

In this instance, the first step is to examine the investment returns in Buckets Two and Three. Depending on performance, there are three possible results. The first scenario is that both buckets produced a positive result. The second is that both produced a negative result, and the third is that one bucket produced a positive return and the other a negative one.

The second step is to withdraw from the Bucket(s) which have generated a positive return, sufficient funds to meet the objective set for Bucket One – that is, two to five years income needs at the start of each year.

The Bucket with a negative year remains untouched. If both buckets are negative, they both remain untouched. This is the reason Bucket One has two to five years’ income needs at the commencement of the strategy so that the retiree can ride out the dips.

The importance of Buckets One and Two to the strategy, and the possibility of a negative scenario in both buckets, make a high-quality private credit fund (the investment described in Box 1), for example, an attractive option for Bucket Two.

If the cash balance in Bucket One at the end of any year is less than two years’ worth of income requirements, equal amounts are drawn from Buckets Two and Three, irrespective of their earning to replenish the Cash Bucket so that it begins the following year with the two years’ income requirement.

Of course, as with anything related to investment that is regulated, there are drawbacks and risks. Consequently, the bucket strategy may not suit everyone.

Setting up and maintaining the strategy demands attention and discipline. Deciding on how much to invest in each bucket and the asset mix in each demands careful thought. An adviser could help here. One must also determine the rules for rebalancing the buckets, and discipline must be applied to following those rules. 

Further, if the retiree holds too much in Buckets One and Two, relative to Bucket Three, the long-term growth bucket won’t out-earn the withdrawals in Bucket One due to inflation. This would result in declining income as the retiree ages.

Moreover, for the strategy to have any chance of working, Buckets Two and Three require some exposure to growth assets. A conservative investor may find such investment entirely uncomfortable, which would render following the strategy problematic, if not impossible, even remembering Bucket One’s purpose is to provide a buffer against negative returns.

Finally, the bucket strategy, as we have presented here, has ignored asset allocation. While we have suggested there might be merit in an allocation to the Aura High Yield SME Fund for wholesale investors, we haven’t defined how to rebalance each bucket’s individual investments during good or bad years.

Education and advice, or the ongoing guidance of a qualified adviser, might be appropriate, if not necessary.

The retirement bucket strategy has been around for a long time and is one of many approaches to help retirees meet their income and lifestyle needs. As the presence of private credit funds is increasingly felt across the investment landscape, and their performance track record more established, their suitability and role in strategies such as the bucket strategy becomes more relevant and arguably vital.


Disclaimer

Find out more about the Aura Private Credit Funds

You should read the relevant Product Disclosure Statement (PDS) or Information Memorandum (IM) before deciding to acquire any investment products.

Past performance is not an indicator of future performance. Returns are not guaranteed and so the value of an investment may rise or fall.

This information is provided by Montgomery Investment Management Pty Ltd (ACN 139 161 701 | AFSL 354564) (Montgomery) as authorised distributor of the Aura Core Income Fund (ARSN 658 462 652) (Fund). As authorised distributor, Montgomery is entitled to earn distribution fees paid by the investment manager and, subject to certain conditions being met, may be issued equity in the investment manager or entities associated with the investment manager.

The Aura Core Income Fund (ARSN 658 462 652)(Fund) is issued by One Managed Investment Funds Limited (ACN 117 400 987 | AFSL 297042) (OMIFL) as responsible entity for the Fund. Aura Credit Holdings Pty Ltd (ACN 656 261 200) (ACH) is the investment manager of the Fund and operates as a Corporate Authorised Representative (CAR 1297296) of Aura Capital Pty Ltd (ACN 143 700 887 | AFSL 366230). 

You should obtain and carefully consider the Product Disclosure Statement (PDS) and Target Market Determination (TMD) for the Aura Core Income Fund before making any decision about whether to acquire or continue to hold an interest in the Fund. Applications for units in the Fund can only be made through the online application form. The PDS, TMD, continuous disclosure notices and relevant application form may be obtained from www.oneinvestment.com.au/auracoreincomefund or from Montgomery.

The Aura High Yield SME Fund is an unregistered managed investment scheme for wholesale clients only and is issued under an Information Memorandum by Aura Funds Management Pty Ltd (ABN 96 607 158 814, Authorised Representative No. 1233893 of Aura Capital Pty Ltd AFSL No. 366 230, ABN 48 143 700 887).

Any financial product advice given is of a general nature only. The information has been provided without taking into account the investment objectives, financial situation or needs of any particular investor. Therefore, before acting on the information contained in this report you should seek professional advice and consider whether the information is appropriate in light of your objectives, financial situation and needs.  

Montgomery, ACH and OMIFL do not guarantee the performance of the Fund, the repayment of any capital or any rate of return. Investing in any financial product is subject to investment risk including possible loss. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance. Information in this report may be based on information provided by third parties that may not have been verified.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

February Employment Situation

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert The establishment data from the BLS showed a 275,000 increase in payroll employment for February, outpacing the 230,000…

Published

on

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert

The establishment data from the BLS showed a 275,000 increase in payroll employment for February, outpacing the 230,000 average over the previous 12 months. The payroll data for January and December were revised down by a total of 167,000. The private sector added 223,000 new jobs, the largest gain since May of last year.

Temporary help services employment continues a steep decline after a sharp post-pandemic rise.

Average hours of work increased from 34.2 to 34.3. The increase, along with the 223,000 private employment increase led to a hefty increase in total hours of 5.6% at an annualized rate, also the largest increase since May of last year.

The establishment report, once again, beat “expectations;” the WSJ survey of economists was 198,000. Other than the downward revisions, mentioned above, another bit of negative news was a smallish increase in wage growth, from $34.52 to $34.57.

The household survey shows that the labor force increased 150,000, a drop in employment of 184,000 and an increase in the number of unemployed persons of 334,000. The labor force participation rate held steady at 62.5, the employment to population ratio decreased from 60.2 to 60.1 and the unemployment rate increased from 3.66 to 3.86. Remember that the unemployment rate is the number of unemployed relative to the labor force (the number employed plus the number unemployed). Consequently, the unemployment rate can go up if the number of unemployed rises holding fixed the labor force, or if the labor force shrinks holding the number unemployed unchanged. An increase in the unemployment rate is not necessarily a bad thing: it may reflect a strong labor market drawing “marginally attached” individuals from outside the labor force. Indeed, there was a 96,000 decline in those workers.

Earlier in the week, the BLS announced JOLTS (Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey) data for January. There isn’t much to report here as the job openings changed little at 8.9 million, the number of hires and total separations were little changed at 5.7 million and 5.3 million, respectively.

As has been the case for the last couple of years, the number of job openings remains higher than the number of unemployed persons.

Also earlier in the week the BLS announced that productivity increased 3.2% in the 4th quarter with output rising 3.5% and hours of work rising 0.3%.

The bottom line is that the labor market continues its surprisingly (to some) strong performance, once again proving stronger than many had expected. This strength makes it difficult to justify any interest rate cuts soon, particularly given the recent inflation spike.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Mortgage rates fall as labor market normalizes

Jobless claims show an expanding economy. We will only be in a recession once jobless claims exceed 323,000 on a four-week moving average.

Published

on

Everyone was waiting to see if this week’s jobs report would send mortgage rates higher, which is what happened last month. Instead, the 10-year yield had a muted response after the headline number beat estimates, but we have negative job revisions from previous months. The Federal Reserve’s fear of wage growth spiraling out of control hasn’t materialized for over two years now and the unemployment rate ticked up to 3.9%. For now, we can say the labor market isn’t tight anymore, but it’s also not breaking.

The key labor data line in this expansion is the weekly jobless claims report. Jobless claims show an expanding economy that has not lost jobs yet. We will only be in a recession once jobless claims exceed 323,000 on a four-week moving average.

From the Fed: In the week ended March 2, initial claims for unemployment insurance benefits were flat, at 217,000. The four-week moving average declined slightly by 750, to 212,250


Below is an explanation of how we got here with the labor market, which all started during COVID-19.

1. I wrote the COVID-19 recovery model on April 7, 2020, and retired it on Dec. 9, 2020. By that time, the upfront recovery phase was done, and I needed to model out when we would get the jobs lost back.

2. Early in the labor market recovery, when we saw weaker job reports, I doubled and tripled down on my assertion that job openings would get to 10 million in this recovery. Job openings rose as high as to 12 million and are currently over 9 million. Even with the massive miss on a job report in May 2021, I didn’t waver.

Currently, the jobs openings, quit percentage and hires data are below pre-COVID-19 levels, which means the labor market isn’t as tight as it once was, and this is why the employment cost index has been slowing data to move along the quits percentage.  

2-US_Job_Quits_Rate-1-2

3. I wrote that we should get back all the jobs lost to COVID-19 by September of 2022. At the time this would be a speedy labor market recovery, and it happened on schedule, too

Total employment data

4. This is the key one for right now: If COVID-19 hadn’t happened, we would have between 157 million and 159 million jobs today, which would have been in line with the job growth rate in February 2020. Today, we are at 157,808,000. This is important because job growth should be cooling down now. We are more in line with where the labor market should be when averaging 140K-165K monthly. So for now, the fact that we aren’t trending between 140K-165K means we still have a bit more recovery kick left before we get down to those levels. 




From BLS: Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 275,000 in February, and the unemployment rate increased to 3.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Job gains occurred in health care, in government, in food services and drinking places, in social assistance, and in transportation and warehousing.

Here are the jobs that were created and lost in the previous month:

IMG_5092

In this jobs report, the unemployment rate for education levels looks like this:

  • Less than a high school diploma: 6.1%
  • High school graduate and no college: 4.2%
  • Some college or associate degree: 3.1%
  • Bachelor’s degree or higher: 2.2%
IMG_5093_320f22

Today’s report has continued the trend of the labor data beating my expectations, only because I am looking for the jobs data to slow down to a level of 140K-165K, which hasn’t happened yet. I wouldn’t categorize the labor market as being tight anymore because of the quits ratio and the hires data in the job openings report. This also shows itself in the employment cost index as well. These are key data lines for the Fed and the reason we are going to see three rate cuts this year.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Last month we though that the January…

Published

on

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Last month we though that the January jobs report was the "most ridiculous in recent history" but, boy, were we wrong because this morning the Biden department of goalseeked propaganda (aka BLS) published the February jobs report, and holy crap was that something else. Even Goebbels would blush. 

What happened? Let's take a closer look.

On the surface, it was (almost) another blockbuster jobs report, certainly one which nobody expected, or rather just one bank out of 76 expected. Starting at the top, the BLS reported that in February the US unexpectedly added 275K jobs, with just one research analyst (from Dai-Ichi Research) expecting a higher number.

Some context: after last month's record 4-sigma beat, today's print was "only" 3 sigma higher than estimates. Needless to say, two multiple sigma beats in a row used to only happen in the USSR... and now in the US, apparently.

Before we go any further, a quick note on what last month we said was "the most ridiculous jobs report in recent history": it appears the BLS read our comments and decided to stop beclowing itself. It did that by slashing last month's ridiculous print by over a third, and revising what was originally reported as a massive 353K beat to just 229K,  a 124K revision, which was the biggest one-month negative revision in two years!

Of course, that does not mean that this month's jobs print won't be revised lower: it will be, and not just that month but every other month until the November election because that's the only tool left in the Biden admin's box: pretend the economic and jobs are strong, then revise them sharply lower the next month, something we pointed out first last summer and which has not failed to disappoint once.

To be fair, not every aspect of the jobs report was stellar (after all, the BLS had to give it some vague credibility). Take the unemployment rate, after flatlining between 3.4% and 3.8% for two years - and thus denying expectations from Sahm's Rule that a recession may have already started - in February the unemployment rate unexpectedly jumped to 3.9%, the highest since February 2022 (with Black unemployment spiking by 0.3% to 5.6%, an indicator which the Biden admin will quickly slam as widespread economic racism or something).

And then there were average hourly earnings, which after surging 0.6% MoM in January (since revised to 0.5%) and spooking markets that wage growth is so hot, the Fed will have no choice but to delay cuts, in February the number tumbled to just 0.1%, the lowest in two years...

... for one simple reason: last month's average wage surge had nothing to do with actual wages, and everything to do with the BLS estimate of hours worked (which is the denominator in the average wage calculation) which last month tumbled to just 34.1 (we were led to believe) the lowest since the covid pandemic...

... but has since been revised higher while the February print rose even more, to 34.3, hence why the latest average wage data was once again a product not of wages going up, but of how long Americans worked in any weekly period, in this case higher from 34.1 to 34.3, an increase which has a major impact on the average calculation.

While the above data points were examples of some latent weakness in the latest report, perhaps meant to give it a sheen of veracity, it was everything else in the report that was a problem starting with the BLS's latest choice of seasonal adjustments (after last month's wholesale revision), which have gone from merely laughable to full clownshow, as the following comparison between the monthly change in BLS and ADP payrolls shows. The trend is clear: the Biden admin numbers are now clearly rising even as the impartial ADP (which directly logs employment numbers at the company level and is far more accurate), shows an accelerating slowdown.

But it's more than just the Biden admin hanging its "success" on seasonal adjustments: when one digs deeper inside the jobs report, all sorts of ugly things emerge... such as the growing unprecedented divergence between the Establishment (payrolls) survey and much more accurate Household (actual employment) survey. To wit, while in January the BLS claims 275K payrolls were added, the Household survey found that the number of actually employed workers dropped for the third straight month (and 4 in the past 5), this time by 184K (from 161.152K to 160.968K).

This means that while the Payrolls series hits new all time highs every month since December 2020 (when according to the BLS the US had its last month of payrolls losses), the level of Employment has not budged in the past year. Worse, as shown in the chart below, such a gaping divergence has opened between the two series in the past 4 years, that the number of Employed workers would need to soar by 9 million (!) to catch up to what Payrolls claims is the employment situation.

There's more: shifting from a quantitative to a qualitative assessment, reveals just how ugly the composition of "new jobs" has been. Consider this: the BLS reports that in February 2024, the US had 132.9 million full-time jobs and 27.9 million part-time jobs. Well, that's great... until you look back one year and find that in February 2023 the US had 133.2 million full-time jobs, or more than it does one year later! And yes, all the job growth since then has been in part-time jobs, which have increased by 921K since February 2023 (from 27.020 million to 27.941 million).

Here is a summary of the labor composition in the past year: all the new jobs have been part-time jobs!

But wait there's even more, because now that the primary season is over and we enter the heart of election season and political talking points will be thrown around left and right, especially in the context of the immigration crisis created intentionally by the Biden administration which is hoping to import millions of new Democratic voters (maybe the US can hold the presidential election in Honduras or Guatemala, after all it is their citizens that will be illegally casting the key votes in November), what we find is that in February, the number of native-born workers tumbled again, sliding by a massive 560K to just 129.807 million. Add to this the December data, and we get a near-record 2.4 million plunge in native-born workers in just the past 3 months (only the covid crash was worse)!

The offset? A record 1.2 million foreign-born (read immigrants, both legal and illegal but mostly illegal) workers added in February!

Said otherwise, not only has all job creation in the past 6 years has been exclusively for foreign-born workers...

Source: St Louis Fed FRED Native Born and Foreign Born

... but there has been zero job-creation for native born workers since June 2018!

This is a huge issue - especially at a time of an illegal alien flood at the southwest border...

... and is about to become a huge political scandal, because once the inevitable recession finally hits, there will be millions of furious unemployed Americans demanding a more accurate explanation for what happened - i.e., the illegal immigration floodgates that were opened by the Biden admin.

Which is also why Biden's handlers will do everything in their power to insure there is no official recession before November... and why after the election is over, all economic hell will finally break loose. Until then, however, expect the jobs numbers to get even more ridiculous.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/08/2024 - 13:30

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending