Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 419

Four reasons many Australians will work until they're dead

The 2008 recession and the 2020 pandemic are hastening the end of retirement as we now understand it. The problems of chronic underfunding, low returns, longer lives and increasing aged care and medical costs are accelerating. The pressure has been exacerbated by individuals forced to draw on funds during the pandemic.

Average balances in super are insufficient

Australia’s post-work savings system, a model for the world, illustrates the unsustainability of the arrangements. Despite its small population of about 26 million, Australia has over $3 trillion in private retirement savings. Mandatory contributions (currently 10% of pre-tax income) and generous tax benefits underpin this savings pool, which is one of the largest in the world.

However, the typical accumulated balance at retirement age is about $200,000 for men and about half that for women. ASFA data shows the average super balance for men aged 55 to 64 is $332,700 and women is $245,000 but the medians are a more accurate measure and they are only $183,000 and $118,600 respectively. The averages are artificially increased by a small pool of people with large balances but even the average balances are well below the $600,000 to $700,000 estimated to be necessary for homeowning and debt-free couples to finance their retirements, which may last 20 years or more.

The shortfall forces increased reliance on a government-financed pension, originally intended only as a safety net. About 70% of retirees are reliant in part or full on the state pension, which, at about 40% of average weekly earnings, is substantially lower than the 65-75% thought to be needed in retirement. With public finances stretched, access to the government pension is likely to become more restrictive over time.

Last year’s Callaghan Retirement Income Review of the Australian system highlights how retirement arrangements will be forced to evolve.

The centrepiece is the proposition that retirees must live off their savings and the equity in their home, not only the earnings on their investments. Savings should not be seen as building a legacy or nest egg to be bequeathed to the next generation.

All savings must be exhausted and the family home monetised to fund living standards in retirement. In essence, your account balance should be at zero at the time of your and your spouse’s death.

Given the need for shelter, this will necessitate taking out reverse mortgages (effectively borrowing against the value of the home with the debt to be liquidated on sale at death).


Register here to receive the Firstlinks weekly newsletter for free

Policy prescriptions pose difficulties

First, households must borrow when there is no capacity to service debt. The loan and capitalised interest must be recovered from the eventual sale proceeds of the home. This is dependent on asset values. If population cohorts retire and die around the same time, it will place pressure on house prices which secure mortgage loans.

Second, reverse mortgages may not generate sufficient money to finance retirement. It assumes high levels of savings or home equity. This is compounded by the likely low loan-to-value ratio of a reverse mortgage because of the lack of cash interest payments and collateral value uncertainty.

There are difficulties in estimating borrower longevity and partner survival, something which has eluded mankind and actuaries alike. Commercial lenders may be reluctant to participate without government support or guarantees, which would increase the demands on state resources.

Third, the scheme favours existing homeowners. Housing unaffordability means that many in future generations will never own homes. They are simultaneously deprived of bequests from parental estates reducing their seed capital. Given the record numbers of children forced to move back in with parents, the liquidation of the family home may also deprive them of housing.

Fourth, the strategy entails running down the wealth stock of a country as savings are used up and houses sold. In effect, capital is consumed to finance current expenditures. In aggregate, the running down of savings will affect available investment resources across the economy, making the nation more dependent on foreign sources. Uncertainty of drawdowns may affect long-term investment decisions.

The problems highlight failures in economic and social policy. Low wage growth and lack of income security combined with consumerism has meant inadequate savings. Absurd economic policies driving down interest rates over decades have reduced investment income and cash flow. They have exaggerated housing prices, which are now apparently to be used to cover insufficient savings and inadequate investment cash flow earnings.

Paralleling the 2000 Saturday Night Live 'More Cowbell' comedy sketch, policymakers now see more debt as a panacea to every problem.

Retirement will revert to a privilege of the wealthy, supported by expensive, regressive tax subsidies which always favoured high-income earners. For the shrinking middle class, savings and state pension, as long as it is around, may prove insufficient. Most will ultimately be unable to retire, having to work, and work, and work till they die.

When the penny drops, this additional inequality will manifest as further resentment against the elites and the swamp with unpredictable political consequences.

 

Satyajit Das is a former senior executive and banker. His latest book is A Banquet of Consequences – Reloaded  (Penguin March 2021) updates the 2015 edition with 150 new pages covering MMT, PPT (plunge protection team otherwise known as central bankers), the Trump/Johnson ascendancy, the climate emergency, accelerating resource scarcity and Covid-19.

This article was first published in The Australian Financial Review and is republished with permission of Satyajit Das.

 

11 Comments
Jon Kalkman
August 09, 2021

Since the Retirement Income Review (RIR), the language has changed because the focus now is very much on spending capital in retirement, not just income.

Up until the RIR, the family home was a sacred cow, exempt from capital gains tax and also exempt from the age pension assets test. Previously, the underlying sentiment was: “This is mine, I worked for it, and when I die it goes to my kids. I paid taxes all my life so I am also entitled to the age pension”. Any politician who tampered with that “entitlement” risked political suicide.

The RIR has put the family home into the retirement mix. It says quite clearly that at 12%, compulsory super is more than adequate and if you need to rely on the age pension, that too is adequate. But if you need more than either or both of those two sources of income, you have wealth locked up in your family home that you can tap at your discretion and we just happen to have an excellent government home equity scheme available so that you do not have to relocate. For some people it represents a huge store of capital available to help fund their retirement needs as required.

The RIR has included the family home in the retirement funding mix without any reference to the assets test, without any compulsion, and without any political backlash.

Ruth
August 07, 2021

Well said Satyajit.

Andrew Smith
August 05, 2021

Interesting read but three points 1. When will superannuation hit it's point of maturity i.e. when any given person has had their super and SCGs from the start of their working life (e.g. '90s?) vs. those retiring now in the transition period? 2. Much depends upon management of assets e.g. a home and whether to crystalise value and downsize? Prices do not and are not guaranteed to go up. 3. Related to house values in real terms (vs. nominal headline prices) and demography we have a baby boomer 'bubble' which will have significant impact as it passes through retirement phases.

Conversely, look at nations with purely state pension system and demographic issues i.e. ageing populations, below replacement fertility and no immigration, neither permanent nor temporary churn over (like our NOM), hence, increasing pressure on budgets, services and future pension payments; both a potential budgetary and population death spirals.

Mark
August 05, 2021

Interesting article. I posit that a person is more than their superannuation balance, or their financial situation, and consider the health benefits of NOT retiring. I cite a 2010 study in The BMJ, a 2015 study that appeared in Preventing Chronic Disease, and a 2016 study in the Journal for Epidemiology and Community Health that all find that continuing to work beyond retirement age actually lengthens life expectancy. There are caveats though, but the message is clear; that provided you enjoy your work and your work is not physically demanding, why not continue working for as long as you can. Of course, that option is not available to everyone.

Peter
August 05, 2021

Agree with James' comments. 1. Unless all borrowers died within a period of a few months, I highly doubt there would be any impact on home prices. Look at the increased prices since the beginning of he pandemic when foreign borrowers have all but disappeared & banks etc were forecasting significant falls. 2. Insurance companies etc have little difficulty in assessing longevity & have done so for decades. As for asset values, refer #1 above. 3. Der. No house = no reverse mortgage, 4.This argument ignores the value of new monies flowing into the superannuation system & the fact that for each house seller there must bee a house buyer.

James
August 05, 2021

Up until recently the superannuation system has been immature. A quick back of the envelope calculation for a worker earning a modest $60,000 p.a., 10% superannuation contribution less 15% is $5,100 p.a. net input and even earning a modest 5% p.a., starting balance at zero, and even say only 37 years of working, with no pay or superannuation increases, the compounded return yields some $518,000! Average balances $200,000 for men?! I don’t think so! Catastrophising somewhat methinks!

CC
August 05, 2021

James, in 37 years time $518K won't be worth too much I fear.....and the average house price in this ridiculously managed country will probably be about 3 million.

James
August 05, 2021

I sincerely doubt that house prices will continue to grow at a rate far exceeding median wage growth. We are in a momentum and low interest rate driven bubble. Borrowers have to get loans, dependent in part on their capacity to pay the loan. Also, interest rates are super abnormally low and cannot stay this way forever. When rates go up.......asset prices go down!

Graham Hand
August 05, 2021

James, this is an invalid comparison. Your $518,000 are in future dollars so of course the number looks high compounded over 37 years. Das's numbers are present day dollars, as confirmed by ASFA. He is not saying men will only have $200,000 in future dollars in 37 years.

James
August 05, 2021

My point is that even with a low wage, no pay rises , contributions % not increasing and a below average return over a working lifetime future retirees will be better off than some are now! Of course wages should grow at least with CPI and contributions (in tomorrow’s dollars) will be added every year. I really do think he’s overly pessimistic!

James
August 05, 2021

Just found a better online calculator, that includes inflation.
ASFA comfortable retirement income for a single about $44,000 p.a. (their figures, not my ideal!). So my example 30 yo, with no present superannuation balance (unlikely), who retires at 67, wanting $44,000 p.a. in todays dollars (with $0 pension payments), savings running out at age 95, average invest return 7%, and inflation 2.5% would need to have saved a little over $701,000 in todays dollars by age 67. I reckon that's very doable!

 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

A close look at retiree fears and expectations

How to give retirees the confidence to spend

How the age pension helps retirees cope with losses

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

House prices surge but falls are common and coming

We tend to forget that house prices often fall. Direct lending controls are more effective than rate rises because macroprudential limits affect the volume of money for housing leaving business rates untouched.

Survey responses on pension eligibility for wealthy homeowners

The survey drew a fantastic 2,000 responses with over 1,000 comments and polar opposite views on what is good policy. Do most people believe the home should be in the age pension asset test, and what do they say?

100 Aussies: five charts on who earns, pays and owns

Any policy decision needs to recognise who is affected by a change. It pays to check the data on who pays taxes, who owns assets and who earns the income to ensure an equitable and efficient outcome.

Three good comments from the pension asset test article

With articles on the pensions assets test read about 40,000 times, 3,500 survey responses and thousands of comments, there was a lot of great reader participation. A few comments added extra insights.

The sorry saga of housing affordability and ownership

It is hard to think of any area of widespread public concern where the same policies have been pursued for so long, in the face of such incontrovertible evidence that they have failed to achieve their objectives.

Latest Updates

Strategy

$1 billion and counting: how consultants maximise fees

Despite cutbacks in public service staff, we are spending over a billion dollars a year with five consulting firms. There is little public scrutiny on the value for money. How do consultants decide what to charge?

Investment strategies

Two strong themes and companies that will benefit

There are reasons to believe inflation will stay under control, and although we may see a slowing in the global economy, two companies should benefit from the themes of 'Stable Compounders' and 'Structural Winners'.

Financial planning

Reducing the $5,300 upfront cost of financial advice

Many financial advisers have left the industry because it costs more to produce advice than is charged as an up-front fee. Advisers are valued by those who use them while the unadvised don’t see the need to pay.

Strategy

Many people misunderstand what life expectancy means

Life expectancy numbers are often interpreted as the likely maximum age of a person but that is incorrect. Here are three reasons why the odds are in favor of people outliving life expectancy estimates.

Investment strategies

Slowing global trade not the threat investors fear

Investors ask whether global supply chains were stretched too far and too complex, and following COVID, is globalisation dead? New research suggests the impact on investment returns will not be as great as feared.

Investment strategies

Wealth doesn’t equal wisdom for 'sophisticated' investors

'Sophisticated' investors can be offered securities without the usual disclosure requirements given to everyday investors, but far more people now qualify than was ever intended. Many are far from sophisticated.

Investment strategies

Is the golden era for active fund managers ending?

Most active fund managers are the beneficiaries of a confluence of favourable events. As future strong returns look challenging, passive is rising and new investors do their own thing, a golden age may be closing.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2021 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 ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). 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.

Website Development by Master Publisher.