You never saw the market crash coming. When it came, it lasted longer than you would ever have expected. The damage it did seriously dented your retirement savings at the worst possible time for you. Now, your ability to live through your retirement years the way you planned is in jeopardy. What can you do?

Working out how to deal with a worst case scenario like this is among the least fun aspects of financial planning because it casts a gloomy shadow over all that you might have hoped you could do in retirement. Yet if you don't and the worst case scenario for you happens, you'll find out quickly how much more gloomy the experience can be. Thinking about how you might recover from that kind of hit while planning your retirement will at least give you a good sense of what you can do if you need to face that situation. There's comfort in knowing what things you can do.

Previously, we considered a scenario in which the worst case happened, but the two hypothetical investors experiencing it at different points of their retirement years never adapted their retirement spending plans to recover from it.

But what if they did? The analysts at Schwab's Center for Financial Research considered how two different hypothetical investors who started off with the same retirement plan might respond to the worst case scenario of a prolonged market crash at the beginning of their retirement years by changing the rate at which they withdrew money from their retirement accounts while the market recovered. One would withdraw just 2% of their retirement savings per year, while the other would withdraw 4% [1]. The following chart shows the results of this exercise:

Here's what they found:

A rebounding market should help them quickly make up lost ground, right? Unfortunately, not always—those continuing withdrawals can create a strong headwind, with more shares sold to support spending in a down market than would be the case when values are appreciating. But by dialing back his annual withdrawals to 2%, Investor 1 will be back where he started after roughly 11.5 consecutive years of 6% annual gains. With a 4% withdrawal rate, Investor 2 would have to have 28 straight years of 6% gains to fully recover.

Somewhat lost in this discussion is the bigger question of what are each investor's retirement savings for. Is it to preserve and grow the total value of their accumulated retirement savings throughout their entire retirement so that it can be passed on to their heirs? Or is it to provide reasonably sufficient funds to support their living expenses during retirement?

For example, let's say you went from having a million dollars in retirement savings when you started your retirement and dropped to around $650,000 after two years of a market crash. Withdrawing 2% annually could get your retirement account to fully recover after 11.5 years, but would mean pulling just $13,000 to support your retirement in that first year of recovery and similar amounts in future years. You could double that withdrawal rate to 4% and you can have $26,000 in that year, but that would mean an extra 16.5 years before your retirement account might reach $1 million again.

Which outcome matters more for you?

Notes

[1] Here is Schwab's hypothetical investing scenario for the two investors recovering from a bit hit to their retirement savings:

The example is hypothetical and provided for illustrative purposes only. It is not intended to represent a specific investment product. Dividends and interest are assumed to have been reinvested, and the example does not reflect the effects of taxes or fees. Both portfolios start with $1,000,000. Both portfolios experience 15% declines in years one and two, while both hypothetical investors also withdraw $50,000 per year. Starting in year three, both portfolios grow 6% per year. Investor 1 withdraws 2% per year. Investor 2 withdraws 4% per year.

More By This Author: