Outliving Your Money? Let’s Do the Math on Annuities
W.D. Housley | Aug 13, 2025
When you sit down with an annuity salesperson, they’ll probably start with a question that cuts straight to your fears: “What if you live to 100? Wouldn’t you rather have a guaranteed check every month?” It sounds comforting — but the truth is, most annuity checks are just your own money coming back to you, with a little interest, minus their cut. Let’s run some numbers. Imagine you’re 65 years old with $500,000 in retirement savings. You have two options: Buy an immediate fixed annuity with a 5.5% payout rate. That means you’ll get $27,500 a year for life, no matter how long you live. Invest in a self-managed portfolio of low-cost ETFs like VOO (S&P 500) or VYM (high-dividend stocks), withdraw 4% in the first year, and adjust withdrawals for inflation. Assume a 6% average annual return. We’ll run both options over 20 years. The First 5 Years Year Annuity Payment “Balance”* Portfolio Withdrawal Portfolio Balance 1 $27,500 $472,500 $20,000 $508,800 2 $27,500 $445,000 $20,600 $517,492 3 $27,500 $417,500 $21,218 $526,050 4 $27,500 $390,000 $21,855 $534,448 5 $27,500 $362,500 $22,510 $542,654 *Annuities don’t actually give you a running balance, but this shows how much of your original $500k is left if you think of the payments as coming from your own principal. Already you can see the difference — the annuity “balance” steadily drops, while the portfolio balance is growing, even though you’re taking withdrawals. By Year 20: Annuity: Still pays $27,500/year, but inflation has eaten away a big chunk of its buying power — that check now feels like only about $15,200 in today’s dollars. Portfolio: You’re taking out over $36,000/year (inflation-adjusted) and still have about $670,000 left in your account. While a self-managed portfolio often outperforms, annuities do have a place for certain people: No desire (or…
Read more » Does My Sister Need a Financial Advisor?
W.D. Housley | Nov 4, 2025
My sister called and asked if she should get a financial advisor. Her question made me pause, because I’ve wondered the same thing myself. How “right” do you have to be when you invest? How much better does an advisor need to be to make up for their fee? Is it more important to pick the right investments or to be tax-efficient? And if I’ve managed to stay the course through market storms, do I even need an advisor at all? So, I asked AI — and here’s what came back, along with what I learned as I compared its logic to real life. How Right Is Right Enough? AI: You don’t have to be perfect to succeed at investing — just disciplined. If you’ve stayed the course through market downturns and used broad-based index funds, you’ve already solved the hardest part. Markets reward patience more than cleverness. But be honest: when markets fell 20%, did you feel a strong urge to sell before things got worse? If you truly stayed the course, you may not need an advisor. But if you felt panic rising, that’s a sign you should probably find one before the next downturn. Me: My sister never looks at her investments, so she’s never tempted to sell. I look more often than I should, but I tend to buy on dips. Between the two of us, we’ve both stayed steady—one by ignoring the noise, the other by leaning into it. The point goes to self-directed investing for both of us. Sometimes doing nothing—or calmly doing the opposite of the crowd—is the best financial advice of all. The 1% Question AI: Most advisors charge around 1% of assets under management. Over 25 years, that fee can reduce your ending balance by about 20%. To earn that back,…
Read more » Sleeves or Buckets?
W.D. Housley | Feb 3, 2026
Like most investors, I learned early about the elegance of the 60/40 portfolio. Sixty percent stocks for growth. Forty percent bonds for stability. I studied why it worked. Stocks historically delivered long-term returns, bonds reduced volatility, and periodic rebalancing enforced discipline. 60/40 has proved itself as a durable framework. It wasn’t exciting, but it was resilient. I understood its importance. It shaped how I thought about diversification, risk, and balance—and it still does. For many investors, 60/40 remains a perfectly reasonable default, particularly for those saving steadily, reinvesting dividends, and not yet drawing on their portfolios. When 60/40 feels incomplete The issue wasn’t whether 60/40 worked. It clearly had. The issue was what happens when a portfolio shifts from accumulating wealth to supporting spending. When markets fall, the textbook advice is straightforward: rebalance. Sell bonds. Buy stocks. That’s sound in theory. It’s harder in practice when: Stocks and bonds fall together Interest rates are rising Withdrawals are funding real expenses At that point, the central question isn’t about expected returns. It’s more basic: Where does my spending money come from when markets misbehave? That question led me to buckets. Buckets: a spending framework The bucket approach organizes money by time. Short-term bucket: cash for near-term expenses Intermediate bucket: bonds for the next several years Long-term bucket: stocks for long-term growth Buckets made immediate sense. By separating spending from growth, they reduce the risk of selling stocks at the wrong time and provide emotional comfort during market declines. Buckets work—and they work well—especially for managing sequence-of-returns risk early in retirement. But over time, I noticed a limitation. Buckets answered when money would be spent. They didn’t fully explain why I owned each investment. That realization pushed me toward sleeves. Sleeves: a portfolio framework At first, sleeves sounded like semantics. Aren’t sleeves…
Read more » Time to Be Fearful
W.D. Housley | Mar 27, 2026
It was not a wise thing to do—and it’s not an example I’d want my kids or grandkids to follow. But I’ll tell you a tale anyway. It’s a story of loss and comeback, of fear… and, truthfully, more fear. I guess confession is good for the soul. Quite a few years ago, I noticed something simple: the price of gasoline was falling. From that observation, I made a leap. I began buying oil companies and energy ETFs. At first, I eased in. Then, one day, I didn’t. I committed a large chunk of my portfolio—far more than any reasonable person should—to this single idea. And then the drop accelerated. To keep things simple, let’s say I started with 100% of my investment. After the decline, I was staring at 50%. Just like that, half vanished—at least on paper. I remember thinking, “Oh crap.” (One of my favorite semi-offensive phrases.) Then I reached for a well-known investing rule: “The first rule is don’t lose money.” I told myself that if I didn’t sell, I hadn’t really lost anything. My account statement suggested otherwise. Still, I held on. Eventually, the tide turned. Energy prices recovered. My battered position began to heal—and then to grow. For some time now, I’ve been selling, little by little. I don’t know when the rise will end, so I trim in small amounts. But as prices climb and buyers seem eager, a new thought creeps in: “Oh crap… am I selling too soon? Too cheap?” That’s the strange thing. I’ve made a substantial profit, yet the fear hasn’t gone away. It’s just changed shape. When I was down 50%, I feared losing more. Now that I’m up, I fear missing out. Here’s what I’ve come to believe: unless you are absolutely certain—borderline hubristic—you will feel fear…
Read more » Our Special Relationship
W.D. Housley | Sep 18, 2025
A Family Correspondence. Letter from the Son… Dear Mom and Dad, When I stormed out of your house, I was furious. It just didn’t seem fair that you taxed me for my morning tea—especially when it wasn’t even that good. In hindsight, it was probably a blessing. I switched to coffee, which at least wakes me up before my workday rather than lulling me back to sleep. Of course, it didn’t help that a few years later you burned down my house. It was such a nice, pretty White House, too. Took me ages to rebuild. Did you hear we’ve rebuilt it and we’re adding a ballroom? You should come visit when it’s finished—though please leave the matches at home this time. Looking back, the events we endured together were not easy. We bled, we argued, we made mistakes—but we also stood shoulder to shoulder when it mattered most. Those sacrifices still ache in our bones, though they’ve done much for the rest of the neighborhood. Time has a way of softening grudges. At Thanksgiving dinner this year, we raised our glasses to our “special relationship.” We were grateful that we still speak the same language—mostly. I confess, I once worried you might be forced to swap Shakespeare, but thanks to our teamwork, Hamlet still soliloquizes in English. These days, I have my own house, my own family, and my own bills. You taught me well: I not only charge my kids rent, I’ve introduced them to the fine tradition of “taxation without representation.” They grumble, of course—but I remind them that’s how I was raised. And yes, I still visit. We bicker, we reminisce, and then we go back to saving the world together—because let’s face it, no one else will do it properly. Love, Your sometimes-rebellious but always…
Read more » THE REAL RETURN ON DELAYING SOCIAL SECURITY
W.D. Housley | Nov 12, 2025
EVERY FEW MONTHS, I come across yet another article claiming that delaying Social Security is like earning an 8% guaranteed return. It’s a comforting phrase—clean, simple, and easy to repeat. Unfortunately, it isn’t true. Yes, the Social Security Administration awards an 8% delayed retirement credit for each year you postpone benefits beyond full retirement age. But that 8% is simple interest, not compound. And no matter how attractive the credit looks on the surface, it ignores an uncomfortable fact: You’re giving up three full years of monthly checks to earn it. When we account for the actual cash flows—what we give up and what we get back—the real return looks very different. A REAL-WORLD EXAMPLE Take someone born in 1960 or later. Their full retirement age is 67. If they delay benefits to age 70, here’s what happens: They skip 36 monthly payments. They earn 24% more in monthly benefits for the rest of their life. Suppose the age-67 benefit is $1,000 a month. Delaying means turning down $36,000 over three years (36 × $1,000). At age 70, the monthly benefit jumps to $1,240—a $240 increase. So what’s the rate of return on the $36,000 “investment” needed to earn an extra $240 a month for life? This is where the math tells a much quieter story than the 8% billboard slogan. THE TRUE RATE OF RETURN Using a basic internal rate of return (IRR) calculation—treating the skipped payments as an upfront cost and the extra income as a lifetime annuity—the result comes out to: Approximately 5.3% to 5.5% per year, inflation-adjusted. That’s the conclusion reached by: The Social Security Administration (~5.3%) Mike Piper’s Open Social Security calculator (~5.25%) Research from Kitces, Wade Pfau, and Bogleheads contributors (5.0%–5.6%) My own spreadsheet calculation (5.48%) Why isn’t it 8%? Because: The 8% credit…
Read more »
One Person’s Luxury, Another’s Necessity
Mark Crothers | Jul 21, 2026
FIFA Financials
R Quinn | Jul 19, 2026
Lessons on the Ground
ArticleDennis Friedman | Jul 18, 2026
A Can of Worms
Dan Smith | Jul 17, 2026
Buying a car in retirement
Julie C | Jul 11, 2026
K-shaped Economy
ArticleAdam M. Grossman | Jul 18, 2026
Will Your Death Double Your Spouse’s Tax Bill?
achnk53 | Jul 15, 2026
Many seniors think we paid for our Social Security benefits based on the FICA taxes we paid. Let’s dispel that myth- we didn’t
R Quinn | Jun 15, 2026
Danger, Junk Mail
Sonja Haggert | Jul 16, 2026
The Paradox of Wealth
Mark Crothers | Jul 15, 2026
A Letter 40 Years Later: What Mrs. Dolezal Remembered
Andrew Clements | Jul 1, 2026
IRMAA & late filing of tax returns
Danbo | Jul 15, 2026