IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jrisks/v12y2024i4p70-d1378903.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Determining Safe Withdrawal Rates for Post-Retirement via a Ruin-Theory Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Diba Daraei

    (Department of Statistical and Actuarial Sciences, School of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, Western University, London, ON N6A 5B7, Canada)

  • Kristina Sendova

    (Department of Statistical and Actuarial Sciences, School of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, Western University, London, ON N6A 5B7, Canada)

Abstract

To ensure a comfortable post-retirement life and the ability to cover living expenses, it is of utmost importance for individuals to have a clear understanding of how long their pre-retirement savings will last. In this research, we employ a ruin-theory approach to model the inflows and the outflows of retirees’ portfolios. We track all transactions within the portfolios of retired clients sourced by a registered investment provider to Canada’s Financial Wellness Lab at Western University. By utilizing an advanced ruin model, we calculate the mean and the median time it takes for savings to be exhausted, the probabilities of exhaustion of funds within the retirees’ expected remaining lifetime while accounting for the observed withdrawal rates, and the deficit at ruin if a retiree has used up all of their savings. We also account for gender as well as for the risk tolerance of retired clients using a K-Means clustering algorithm. This allows us to compare the financial outcomes for female and male retirees and to enhance some findings in the literature. In the final phase of our study, we compare the results obtained by our methodology to the 4% rule which is a widely used approach for post-retirement spending. Our results show that most retirees can withdraw safely more than they currently do (around 2.5%). A withdrawal rate of about 4.5% is proved to be safe, but it might not provide sufficient income for most retirees since it yields approximately CAD 20,000 per year for male retirees in the highest risk tolerance group who withdraw about 4.5% annually.

Suggested Citation

  • Diba Daraei & Kristina Sendova, 2024. "Determining Safe Withdrawal Rates for Post-Retirement via a Ruin-Theory Approach," Risks, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-21, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jrisks:v:12:y:2024:i:4:p:70-:d:1378903
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9091/12/4/70/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9091/12/4/70/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Moshe A. Milevsky & Kristen S. Moore & Virginia R. Young, 2006. "Asset Allocation And Annuity‐Purchase Strategies To Minimize The Probability Of Financial Ruin," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(4), pages 647-671, October.
    2. Yuliya Bregman & Claudia Klüppelberg, 2005. "Ruin estimation in multivariate models with Clayton dependence structure," Scandinavian Actuarial Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2005(6), pages 462-480.
    3. Alexander J. McNeil & Rüdiger Frey & Paul Embrechts, 2015. "Quantitative Risk Management: Concepts, Techniques and Tools Revised edition," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 2, number 10496.
    4. Edward Frees & Emiliano Valdez, 1998. "Understanding Relationships Using Copulas," North American Actuarial Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(1), pages 1-25.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zheng Wei & Seongyong Kim & Boseung Choi & Daeyoung Kim, 2019. "Multivariate Skew Normal Copula for Asymmetric Dependence: Estimation and Application," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(01), pages 365-387, January.
    2. Takaaki Koike & Marius Hofert, 2020. "Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods for Estimating Systemic Risk Allocations," Risks, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-33, January.
    3. Takaaki Koike & Marius Hofert, 2019. "Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods for Estimating Systemic Risk Allocations," Papers 1909.11794, arXiv.org, revised May 2020.
    4. Yang Yang & Shuang Liu & Kam Chuen Yuen, 2022. "Second-Order Tail Behavior for Stochastic Discounted Value of Aggregate Net Losses in a Discrete-Time Risk Model," Journal of Theoretical Probability, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 2600-2621, December.
    5. Kojadinovic, Ivan, 2017. "Some copula inference procedures adapted to the presence of ties," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 24-41.
    6. Fabrizio Durante & Erich Klement & Carlo Sempi & Manuel Úbeda-Flores, 2010. "Measures of non-exchangeability for bivariate random vectors," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 687-699, September.
    7. Abduraimova, Kumushoy, 2022. "Contagion and tail risk in complex financial networks," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    8. Masahiko Egami & Rusudan Kevkhishvili, 2020. "Time reversal and last passage time of diffusions with applications to credit risk management," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 795-825, July.
    9. Avanzi, Benjamin & Taylor, Greg & Wong, Bernard & Yang, Xinda, 2021. "On the modelling of multivariate counts with Cox processes and dependent shot noise intensities," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 9-24.
    10. Pfeifer Dietmar & Mändle Andreas & Ragulina Olena, 2017. "New copulas based on general partitions-of-unity and their applications to risk management (part II)," Dependence Modeling, De Gruyter, vol. 5(1), pages 246-255, October.
    11. Makam, Vaishno Devi & Millossovich, Pietro & Tsanakas, Andreas, 2021. "Sensitivity analysis with χ2-divergences," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 372-383.
    12. Furman, Edward & Landsman, Zinoviy, 2010. "Multivariate Tweedie distributions and some related capital-at-risk analyses," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 351-361, April.
    13. Jevtić, P. & Hurd, T.R., 2017. "The joint mortality of couples in continuous time," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 90-97.
    14. Nevrla, Matěj, 2020. "Systemic risk in European financial and energy sectors: Dynamic factor copula approach," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 44(4).
    15. Albrecher Hansjörg & Kantor Josef, 2002. "Simulation of ruin probabilities for risk processes of Markovian type," Monte Carlo Methods and Applications, De Gruyter, vol. 8(2), pages 111-128, December.
    16. H. Kaibuchi & Y. Kawasaki & G. Stupfler, 2022. "GARCH-UGH: a bias-reduced approach for dynamic extreme Value-at-Risk estimation in financial time series," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(7), pages 1277-1294, July.
    17. Battulga Gankhuu, 2022. "Merton's Default Risk Model for Private Company," Papers 2208.01974, arXiv.org.
    18. Y. Malevergne & D. Sornette, 2003. "Testing the Gaussian copula hypothesis for financial assets dependences," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(4), pages 231-250.
    19. Stephan Schlüter & Fabian Menz & Milena Kojić & Petar Mitić & Aida Hanić, 2022. "A Novel Approach to Generate Hourly Photovoltaic Power Scenarios," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-16, April.
    20. Borowska, Agnieszka & Hoogerheide, Lennart & Koopman, Siem Jan & van Dijk, Herman K., 2020. "Partially censored posterior for robust and efficient risk evaluation," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 217(2), pages 335-355.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jrisks:v:12:y:2024:i:4:p:70-:d:1378903. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.