Reinstate the 120% limit

Before debating the case for a change to the rules on how drawdown income is calculated, it’s necessary to understand the true nature and scale of the problem. A client scenario that we dealt with earlier this year should help to set the scene.
25 May 2012

A 60-year-old male went into drawdown on 1 December 2006, with a fund of £300,000 and a maximum income of £22,320 per annum.

If, at his pension review on 1 December 2011, the only factor in the calculation to have changed had been his age, our client might reasonably have expected his maximum income to have increased to £25,200. In reality, several factors combined in such a way that it had actually fallen to just £15,432 per annum. 

In order of impact, the drop in income was caused by the following factors:

1.

A fall in gilt yields

38.24%

2.

Government’s decision to scrap the 20% uplift

37.19%

3.

A fall in investment markets

18.18%

4.

Government’s decision to update GAD tables

 6.38%

Anyone investing in an income drawdown plan accepts a range of fundamental risks. They must be prepared for the possibility that high income withdrawals may not be sustainable, and may erode the capital value of the fund.   

There has been speculation about difficult market conditions increasing the likelihood of these risks becoming reality for many investors. It has even been suggested that there is a significant risk of depleting the entire fund.  With all of this in mind we recently carried out some modelling to see if there is any truth in the speculation.

The model looks at a 65-year-old client investing £300,000 in income drawdown, and drawing the maximum available pension every year up to age 90. The table below shows the remaining fund value at various points in time, assuming that 5% and 7% p.a. growth is achieved.

Age

Fund value at 5% p.a. growth

Fund value at 7% p.a. growth

65

£300,000

£300,000

70

£287,040

£317,723

75

£260,359

£319,834

80

£212,948

£288,696

85

£148,320

£222,275

90

£90,278

£149,762

Assumptions: male investor, GAD rate of 2.25% until age 90.

So, even in the unlikely scenario that maximum pension is drawn every year, the risk of fund depletion is not as significant as some would suggest. Crucially, the need for frequent income reviews offers protection.

With this in mind, I remain firmly of the view that the current rules are overly harsh, and that there is a compelling case for the Government to immediately:

Billy Mackay
Marketing Director
AJ Bell

Follow us: