Their distinct risks and objectives mean investing for drawdown is entirely different from investing for accumulation and so, argues Lorna Blyth, it is wishful thinking to assume one solution should be used for both
I was both surprised and dismayed to read a recent quote from research conducted by the lang cat and CWC Research, which showed nearly two-thirds (60%) of the firms they surveyed did not have a separate investment proposition for drawdown. The reality is that investing for drawdown is quite different from investing for accumulation because there are different objectives to deliver against and different risks to manage - and it is wishful thinking to assume one solution should be used for both. Sequencing risk is a key risk for at-retirement planning and can have a huge impact on the ...
To continue reading this article...
Join Professional Adviser for free
Signup and gain exclusive members-only insights
- Unlimited access to real-time news, industry insights and market intelligence
- Stay ahead of the curve with spotlights on emerging trends and technologies
- Receive breaking news stories straight to your inbox in the daily newsletters
- Make smart business decisions with the latest developments in regulation, investing retirement and protection
- Members-only access to the editor’s weekly Friday commentary
- Be the first to hear about our events and awards programmes
