Pension Plan

[JulieW]

Last night's budget statement on retirement funds as dissected by Daily Reckoning.

In last night's budget, there was a surprise announcement on how much you can transfer into the tax-free pension phase of superannuation.

The retrospective cap is set at $1.6 million.

According to Scott Morrison in his budget address last night: 'A balance of $1.6 million can support an income stream in retirement around four times the level of the single age pension.'

Spoken like a true taxpayer funded superannuant, Scott. You have no idea mate.

The full age pension (with pension and energy supplements) for a single person is $22,721 per annum ($873.90 per fortnight).

Let's do some simple math.

If we multiply the single age pension of $22,721 by four times, we get a figure of $90,884.

For $1.6 million to generate an income of $90,884 requires a 5.7% rate of return.

Please tell me Scott, where we can get that rate of return?

Cash and term deposits pay are around 23%.

Buy one of your 10-year government bonds and we get 2.5%.

Invest in a residential property and, after expenses, we'll get 3% (if we're lucky).

So what does that leave us with? Fully franked shares.

Scott, with corporate earnings coming under pressure due to the global deflationary squeeze, will companies be able to maintain the current dividend policy?

Let's put that obvious question to one side; Scott, are you really suggesting that retirees place 100% of their portfolio in shares?

Financial planners would be hanged, drawn and quartered for doing this without proper risk analysis.

On the one hand, the government is rightly clamping down on irresponsible advice from financial planners, yet we have the Treasurer indirectly suggesting retirees go full tilt into the share market, risking the potential to expose their retirement funds to substantial capital loss.

Or perhaps Scott is thinking retirees can invest in some junk corporate bonds. Now there's another good ideanot.

Our Treasurer's reasoning for the cap fails the most basic of scrutiny. But his statement plays well to the crowd.

A conservative retiree with $1.6 million invested at 2% will generate $32,000 per annumabout $10,000 more a year than if they had not saved.

And, if interest rates go to 1%, they'll earn less than if they were on the full pension.

Where's the incentive to save?

 

[SpacePete]

I'm guessing that now many people currently under 50 have lost confidence in the super system and will stop all voluntary contributions.

 

[errol43]

Where do the experts tell you to put your super with good returns and no risk...In these times it is no real benefit having $500 k at retirement and getting 3% interest on your money. You will still have to rely on the pension and most likely you will have to spend some of the $500k to survive.

Great Post JulieW

Regards Errol 43

 

[errol43]

Three percent on your savings at the banks...Less inflation and don't forget to pay your tax...Buy silver! At least you have a chance sometime during the year to make 5%?

What are the people here on SS who have SMSF investing in, I Wonder?

What the hell are the experts in Industry funds going to in vest in, I wonder?

Maybe derivatives? Go to the Casino?

REgards Errol 43

 

[SpacePete]

One big crash and it's all gone anyway.

Gone. Gone. Gone.

These suggestions of mysteriously good returns on Super at some indefinite time down the track never take into account a massive financial collapse that could while out people's enforced investments.

 

[SpacePete]

Maybe halt all voluntary contributions and use the money to gain skills and land for self-sufficiency in old age?

 

[mmm....shiney!]

What are the people here on SS who have SMSF investing in, I Wonder?

Some diversification, cash, PM's and soon some property (which'll take care of the cash :lol: ). But our plans are nearly solely RE based.

 

[Kooka]

((((((((For $1.6 million to generate an income of $90,884 requires a 5.7% rate of return.
Please tell me Scott, where we can get that rate of return?))))))

Someone need to see a financial advisor as a return of 5.7% is pretty low. Should be up around 9%...........

I have a SMSF and retired some years ago. Most of my fund is invested in bank and other blue stock shares and while the price of the shares go up and down the income (dividend) stream changes little.
The only things guaranteed in life are taxes and death.

If you want to keep your money somewhere that is 100% guaranteed then leave it in the bank accounts as they are gov. guaranteed......

 

[SpacePete]

I have a SMSF and retired some years ago. Most of my fund is invested in bank and other blue stock shares and while the price of the shares go up and down the income (dividend) stream changes little.
The only things guaranteed in life are taxes and death.

But how old are you if you don't mind me asking? Dividend imputation, blue chip stocks, a strong economy and highly favourable preferential taxation treatment during accumulation mean those of a certain generation are wise to follow your strategy as it is very beneficial.

But... "Past Performance is No Guarantee of Future Results"

Anyone under 50 will not be investing in the same economic or government policy environment going forward. The landscape is changing.

 

[Kooka]

I have a SMSF and retired some years ago. Most of my fund is invested in bank and other blue stock shares and while the price of the shares go up and down the income (dividend) stream changes little.
The only things guaranteed in life are taxes and death.

But how old are you if you don't mind me asking? Dividend imputation, blue chip stocks, a strong economy and highly favourable preferential taxation treatment during accumulation mean those of a certain generation are wise to follow your strategy as it is very beneficial.

But... "Past Performance is No Guarantee of Future Results"

Anyone under 50 will not be investing in the same economic or government policy environment going forward. The landscape is changing.

You're right investment strategy depends on your age. I'm 63 and retired in 2007 so I was well past the age of looking at investments with a degree bit of risk. I was more interested in the income stream so went mainly for the blue chip stocks.
Yes your capital amount can and does go up and down but unless you need to sell anything it is only a paper gain or loss. I sat through the GFC without selling anything and while my income stream did drop it was still plenty for me to live on.
Since then capital has soared and income gone up.

Share investing is at best long term as the longer you hold good stock the better your return generally gets.
As share prices go up the dividend percentage usually remains about the same. Therefore your actual return on monies invested rises providing the company remains good.....

My best investment returns me about 25%. I brought these shares (SUL) on listing and they are now paying around $6.1% on a share price of about $8.... The 6.1% is around the same as they were paying when the first listed at a price of just over $2..per share