Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 11

A brighter view of dependency ratios

 

Gloom and doom stories are easy to write concerning future ratios of retired population to workers (and I have written such articles). I am not backing off from using these ratios to criticise governments about better balancing the promises of pensions and health care with future revenue capacity. However there is a more positive view we can put to individuals and their advisers who do face up to their own balancing of life expectations and future income.

Over 65 isn't what it used to be

Let’s reflect on this Dependency Ratio measure. It’s generally been calculated as population aged 65 and over divided by population aged between 15 and 64. Alternatively it can be inverted and shown as ‘workers’ (population aged 15 to 64) divided by ‘retirees’ (population aged 65 and over) and that’s the way I will express it here.

When the Australian age pension was introduced in 1909 the ratio was 15.0 (i.e. 15 workers per 1 retiree).  If we use the same age brackets and current population data (2011 census data) we get 4.9 workers per 1 retiree.  Projecting this population and future expected longevity trends the ratio declines further to 3.5 in 2025 and 2.6 in 2050.

But what if we defined the age brackets for this ratio more dynamically? In 1909 age 65 was probably a fair average for when bodies broke down and mental and physical function made sustainable employment impractical. There are a number of ways of dynamically standardising what this age should be and allow for improvement over time in lifetimes and management of disabilities.

One approach is to calculate Disability Adjusted Life Expectancy (DALE). Many readers would already be familiar with ‘life expectancy’ – average expected future years of life calculated from life tables. DALE is a more complex version of this calculation which measures the equivalent number of years of life expected to be lived in full health i.e. healthy life expectancy. DALE requires quite a lot of data on burden of disease by age and is an evolving methodology. For this reason it’s difficult to go back in time and work out what DALE would have been in 1909.

An alternative to DALE is to standardise the worker retiree ratio for different points in time based on assuming a constant percentage of total lifetime which is spent in retirement. Based on my research of mortality tables, I think this is a good proxy for DALE methodology.

For example, in 1909 when 65 was first used as the retirement age, life expectancy from that age was to live to age 77 (average for men and women). This means the average period expected to be spent in retirement (12 years) was 16 % of total lifetime (77 years).

Moving more than 60 years forward to 1975 life tables, there was not a great deal of change in this position. Using 16% of lifetime expected to be lived in retirement as the standard, we get age 68 as the standardised retirement age in 1975 – just 3 years more than in 1909.

However from 1975 onwards to 2011, the longevity improves at a much greater rate. The standardised dynamic retirement age increases a further 6 years to age 73. This is now a long way from the age 65 we normally use in our statistics.

Now if we use this more dynamic way of calculating retirement age, dependency ratios have a much more stable pattern. From 1909 to 2011 instead of reducing from 15.0 to 4.9 workers per retiree, the ratio stabilises around 9.0 from 1950 until the present time. Allowing for longevity to keep improving in future at the rate it has been recently, we do see some further decline in the ratio to 2025 (7.2) and by 2050 (5.3) but well above the catastrophic 2.5 using unadjusted age 65 as the retirement age basis for the ratio.

What conclusions can we draw?

So what are the conclusions from all this?  The following are a few thoughts:

  • retirement planning advisers need to consider both total longevity and healthy life expectations
  • whilst people (and their employers!) may tire of a ‘major’ career between say age 55 and 65, it doesn’t mean retirement starts and income generation stops when this inflection point is reached. Different, more flexible occupations sustaining basic living costs will need to be planned for by individuals and their advisers until the point when genuine physical incapacity for work arrives
  • real value of capital accumulated needs to be protected past the traditional retirement age using endowment fund type strategies, as there may be many years of a healthy lifestyle to come
  • longevity insurance products will offer the best value to clients if the income payout is targeted from the ‘dynamic’ retirement ages (using the above methodology, closer to age 73 than 65) rather than starting payments from when clients cease their ‘major’ full time careers. This is the ‘sweet spot’ of deferred annuities (even sweeter now if the government legislates recent announcements)
  • if a genuine market now develops for deferred annuity products, published league tables of deferred annuity rates will help educate clients and their advisers much more simply about dynamic retirement age concepts than studying complex mortality tables and talking to actuaries.

It might even help to stop thinking of someone who is 72 as a ‘dependent’.

Bruce Gregor is an actuary and demographic researcher at Financial Demographics and established the website www.findem.com.au.

 

4 Comments
David Roberts
April 20, 2013

3 to 4 workers paying tax to support retirees in luxury. those self-funded retirees with $3million in the funds are paying no tax on their $150000 pension, pay nothing towards their medical upkeep as Medicare is paid on taxable income so they should be paying $2,250 for Medicare if their pension was counted. Then they get the Senior's Health Card (SHC) for nothing as the $50,000 income limit doesn't apply because their pension is not taxable income and so they get prescriptions at $5.60 instead of $35. They also get other handouts from the Commonwealth because of their "low" income. Workers and other retirees without access to pensions from fully-funded superfunds are paying tax and Medicare to support these wealthy retirees. The government couldn't even fix that anomaly with their recent changes even though it was simple - add the pension to the Adjusted Taxable Income (ATI) and calculate MEdicare levy on the ATI and also eligibility to SHC.

Bruce Gregor
April 20, 2013

I agree with your comments. They support my initial point that government fails to match promises with revenue. It goes back to Keating and his 'bring forward' concept in taxing super at 15% which meant when retired it's out of bounds to be taxed as income again. Then Costello brought in what is effectively upper class welfare re not counting super income as you have described re health spending. These two historical events make it politically difficult to fix, but not impossible.

Harry Chemay
April 19, 2013

Bruce, a wonderful piece on a subject unfortunately on the fringe of the retirement incomes policy debate, when it should rightly be at its core.

Your approach to dynamically adjusting the mean expected retirement age (holding percentage of life in retirement constant) is defintely worthy of serious consideration by the policy makers, superannuation funds and the financial planning industry. As a practitioner 'at the coalface' I do see some anecdotal evidence of a shift in mindset from fulltime work (one career) then full retirement, to something more fluid and nuanced in the 50-65 cohort.

That said, it should be noted that I generally see people who are well educated, have made better provision for their retirement years and importantly still have substantial 'human capital' left to exploit if they so choose. And this is a key differentiator between those with significant market value ('knowledge workers') and those with little (manual workers) at the 'traditional' retirement age of 65.

The advisory industry deals primarily with the former. It is the latter that I worry about. These individuals may not have 'second career' and consulting opportunities open to them. And it is for them that government must meet the challenge of an ageing population, whatever the true replacement ratio ends up being.

Thanks once again for opening the dialogue on a topic sorely in need of more debate. I improved as a Consultant and Adviser working under you in the past, and find your insights just as valuable today.

Bruno Bouchet
April 19, 2013

Another great article Bruce. The sooner we start harnessing the huge economic and social potential of 65-75 year olds the better.


 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

Status, longevity and the age pension

Longevity awareness and the three pillars

Making judgments based on age

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

A hard dose reality check on vaccines

With 160 programmes underway and billions of dollars spent on COVID-19 vaccines, investors are drawn to optimistic news. However, the company that has developed most new vaccines has a sober view.

Six ratios show the market is off the charts

There is an infinite variety of financial charts an investor can watch, with many spurious claims about factors and causality. But here are six common charts that are at historical extremes.

After 30 years of investing, I prefer to skip this party

Eventually, prices become so extreme they bear no relationship to reality, and a bubble forms. I believe we are there today, not for all stocks but for many in the technology space.

What super changes should you know from 1 July?

A few rules have changed, one is caught up in the legislative stage, and it's worth revising a couple of others. Around the age of 65, there are specific super opportunities every retiree should know.

How we have invested during COVID-19

With signs that the economic recession will not be as deep as first feared, many companies will emerge strongly with robust business models. Here are the sectors with the best opportunities.

Too much, too fast: four ways we are investing now

There are plenty of reasons for pessimism as the market has recovered too strongly, but quality stocks with good earnings growth and strong cash generation and balance sheets are still available.

Latest Updates

Investment strategies

After 30 years of investing, I prefer to skip this party

Eventually, prices become so extreme they bear no relationship to reality, and a bubble forms. I believe we are there today, not for all stocks but for many in the technology space.

Investment strategies

Citi’s Gofran Chowdhury: clients don’t think the worst is over

Citi's clients tap into their own views to find investments that suit their portfolios, often working across global boundaries. It's a search for solutions in a world with no risk-free returns.

Shares

Two thematics to watch in volatile times

COVID-19 is delivering winners and losers, and buying a well-positioned company while shorting one with worse prospects can provide returns while managing the downside of an overall market correction.

Investment strategies

Four ways to reduce the generation blame game

There's a popular view that generations are 'at war', but is it really the case that generations are more divided than ever before? If so, what's causing it? Why now? And how can we move forward?

Gold

Is gold a growth or defensive asset?

As uncertainty intensifies around geopolitics and markets, gold has rallied strongly in 2020. While most investors think of gold for price growth, does it deliver defensive features to a diversified portfolio?

Superannuation

Large super funds struggle to match index in Aussie equities

With the Retirement Income Review now in Treasury's hands, will the 'fact base' establish whether large super funds do better than the share index? The public evidence is not impressive.

Economy

The green lining of COVID-19: a time for change

With historic falls in greenhouse gas emissions during the COVID-19 pandemic, we have a unique opportunity to construct a recovery that ensures a stronger economy while minimising carbon emissions.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2020 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use.
Any general advice or class service prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, has been prepared by without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. Refer to our Financial Services Guide (FSG) for more information. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.