Most Canadians apparently die with their retirement savings mostly intact. Is the standard drawdown to zero retirement advice just wrong for Canada?
Came across something in some Canadian retirement research that surprised me, and it keeps showing up the more I dig into it.
A lot of the Canadian research (CIRANO, some StatsCan work, and a few academic studies on RRIF withdrawal behaviour) suggests the typical Canadian retiree doesn't actually spend down their savings the way the standard advice assumes. The median household leaves a meaningful chunk of their RRSP, RRIF, TFSA, and home equity behind. Bill Perkins makes the global version of this argument in Die With Zero, but the Canadian data is striking because we also have CPP and OAS as a guaranteed income floor. In theory that should make people less reluctant to spend down their personal savings, not more.
Meanwhile, almost every "how much do I need to retire" calculator and rule of thumb out there (the 4% rule, FIRE math, and so on) is built on the assumption that you will smoothly drain your nest egg to roughly zero by life expectancy.
So a few possibilities:
- Canadians are systematically saving too much and spending too little because we are risk averse, and end up missing decades of enjoyment we could have afforded.
- The drawdown to zero framing is fundamentally wrong because it ignores how real households behave: loss aversion, fear of long term care costs, wanting to leave the cottage or RRSP to kids.
- The data is skewed by people who died early or had estates dominated by home equity that is hard to spend without selling.
Curious what people here think. Is there a real "leave it to the kids" cultural factor in Canada? Anyone here had a parent or grandparent who clearly underspent in retirement, and what was it like to watch from the outside? And for those of you currently planning, are you actually targeting zero, or quietly assuming you will leave a buffer?