An empirical evaluation of dynamic vs static withdrawal strategies: It’s a dynamic small world after all

The purpose of this paper is to compare simple dynamic withdrawal strategies with the static withdrawal method, examining not only failure rates and ending wealth but also spending. All withdrawal strategies are adjusted for the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) required minimum distribution (RMD). In addition, this study investigates the use of small company stocks (SCS) in place of large company stocks (LCS). Results indicate SCS portfolios are superior to large. When returns are poor, some dynamic strategies will not ensure income for life. This study demonstrates that the simplest dynamic strategy is superior to two popular dynamic strategies.,Using historical overlapping periods, different withdrawal strategies are examined. Previous studies focused on failure rates and ending wealth. As discussed in Milevsky (2016) different statistical distributions can have similar tail properties (prob of failure) but dissimilar risk and return profile. The detailed examination of both spending and use of small stocks advances the literature in this area.,Results indicate that use of small stocks is superior to using large stocks in the portfolios. When US historical stock returns are adjusted downward, there is the potential that some dynamic strategies will not ensure income for life. This study demonstrates that the simplest dynamic strategy is superior to two popular dynamic strategies.,This paper is the first to examine, in detail, annual spending results for the retiree. Second, it is shown that, overall, SCS are superior to LCS for all stock/bond allocations. Even though absolute downside risk increases slightly, this increase in downside risk is dominated by the upside potential. In other words, the positive skewness of small stock returns along with the cumulative effects of compounding at a higher rate increases both the available wealth for spending and ending wealth. Third, IRS’s RMDs are taken into account for every withdrawal strategy examined. Lastly, it demonstrates that the simplest dynamic strategy is superior to two popular dynamic strategies.