Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 672

When losses in super become irreplaceable

'You can afford to take more risk.' Every risk-profiling questionnaire leans on the idea, and it sounds like arithmetic: a bigger balance can absorb a bigger fall. Nick Maggiulli argued in Firstlinks that the logic is backwards, because the pain of losing a dollar grows faster than the pleasure of gaining one. He is right, and in Australia he is right in more than one way. His argument is psychology. Whereas ours is legislation. Once a super balance reaches $2.1 million, the ordinary after-tax contribution cap falls to nil, and 'afford' quietly splits into two different words being, (i) surviving a loss, and (ii) replacing one. The headline is blunt. For a retired member with $3 million in super, a 20% fall is $600,000, and the law allows one way to replace it that doesn't involve un-retiring, that is selling the family home. For a working member, its 13 years of maximum contributions — more working years than most 62-year-olds have left.

One caveat before the arithmetic. Money outside super refills the ordinary way, from income and savings, and most portfolio falls repair themselves without a dollar of new money. Both points will be explained below.

The sum Maggiulli ran, and the one Australia adds

Maggiulli's piece contains a calculation, and it is load-bearing. Someone saving $50,000 a year can replace a 20% loss on a $1 million portfolio in under four years; the same loss on $5 million takes more than 14. His conclusion is that risk capacity is bounded not by what you can lose but by what you can put back, and that shrinks as the portfolio outgrows the income feeding it.

Notice the assumption underneath: that you are allowed to put it back. An American brokerage account will take whatever you can save. An Australian super fund will not. The refill pipe has a legislated diameter, it narrows in steps, and past a line it closes.

The steps, from 1 July 2026

Non-concessional (after-tax) contributions (NCCs) are capped at $130,000 a year, with bring-forward amounts up to $390,000 for lower balances. But the cap is tested against your total super balance at the previous 30 June, and once that balance reaches the general transfer balance cap of $2.1 million, the NCC cap is nil. Concessional contributions (CCs) survive at $32,500 a year, which is $27,625 after the 15% contributions tax, and the cap includes your employer's compulsory contributions, so the true voluntary top-up is smaller again. Between 67 and 74, claiming a deduction for a personal contribution also requires passing a work test.

The remaining doors are limited to, (i) a downsizer contribution of up to $300,000, available once in a lifetime and priced at one family home held for 10 years or, (ii) the small business CGT cap, priced at one business. The $1.84 million and $1.97 million lines below aren't arbitrary, they're the $2.1 million cap minus two, and one, years of the annual non-concessional cap, so both thresholds move whenever the annual cap is indexed.

The $600,000 with one way home

Consider a retired 68-year-old with $3 million in super, no wages, no business to sell, and home owned outright. A 20% market fall removes $600,000. NCC capacity is nil because $2.4 million is still above the line. CC capacity is nil, with no employer and no work test. The full list of refill options that don't involve going back to work is one item long. That is, sell the house and contribute $300,000 once. This halves the loss. Every other dollar of recovery must come from the market itself.

Now let’s look at a 62-year-old still working with $2.75 million built over a career. The same 20% fall takes $550,000 and leaves $2.2 million. This is still over the line, so the only ongoing pipe is concessional. Downsizer is a one-off tap, and it's in the table below too. Even granting the full $27,625 a year, invested and earning 7% will take 13 years to fill the hole. He would need to work to 75, the same year the fund stops accepting his voluntary contributions. That is not a plan; it is the arithmetic’s way of saying it will not happen. If he retires at 67, the refill window is five years, and about $159,000 of the $550,000 comes back. The rest is permanent.

One number worth memorising is $2,625,000. That is the balance at which a 20% fall lands you exactly on $2.1 million. Below that, losing money reopens the door. An investor at $2.5 million who drops to $2 million is rewarded with a fresh $130,000 cap because the system restores your right to contribute only once you have lost enough to qualify. Above $2,625,000, even the fall is not big enough to buy the right back.

The honest objection: markets refill themselves

The strongest counter is that this whole exercise treats the loss as permanent and most aren't. A diversified portfolio that falls 20% has, historically, regained it without a cent of new contributions. The refill pipe is irrelevant if the water comes back on its own. Mostly true, and it is why nothing here is a case against growth assets in super. But the pipe matters precisely for the losses that don't come back, being (i) the concentrated position that roundtrips, (ii) the assets sold near the bottom to fund pension payments, and (iii) the sequencing damage of a bad year in early drawdown. Those are permanent, and above the line they are permanent with no legislative appeal. There is also a fair defence of the caps themselves. Super is a tax shelter, and an unlimited refill right would be a recontribution loophole with a motorway through it. The caps are not the villain. The villain is a questionnaire that says 'afford' without asking which meaning.

What to do about it

Accumulators below $1.84 million can mostly keep trusting the questionnaire. Refill capacity is $390,000 plus decades of earnings and risk-taking is how balances get built. Members between $1.84 million and $2,625,000 should know which tier they occupy and remember the test is the balance at the previous 30 June, not today, so capacity reopens only from the following year. Members above $2,625,000, and any retiree above $2.1 million, should treat every dollar inside super as unreplaceable and weight their derisking, concentration ceilings, and glide paths accordingly. Outside super, a mistake costs money. Inside, it costs money you cannot legally put back.

'You can afford it' is doing two jobs in one sentence: you can survive the loss, and you can replace it. Outside super, the two travel together. Inside, past $2.1 million, the law splits them and keeps only the first. The door does not slam. It narrows with every dollar of success, and by the time you most need to walk back through it, you no longer fit.

 

Trevor Schmid has more than 20 years' experience across superannuation and financial advice. This article is general information only and does not consider any individual's objectives, financial situation or needs.

 

  •   22 July 2026
  • 4
  •      
  •   
4 Comments
jeff o
July 26, 2026

Excellent advice - but what about gearing and non-super wealth?

Another way to refill (total) wealth faster after an unexpected big negative shock is to consider dynamic gearing outside super into growth assets when the negative shock sends (real) long term borrowing costs after tax down and growth assets become "cheap" to

CC
July 26, 2026

for high income earners, concessional contributions will only be $22,750 per annum after 30% tax ( 15% plus the Div 293 surcharge 15% for high income earners ).

Rod
July 30, 2026

Not quite right. This is all about how much you can get into super. You can pay the Div 293 tax from money outside of super, so strictly: you can get $27,625 into super p.a. ($32,500-4875) and pay the other $4875 Div 293 tax on your credit card

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

Unpacking investment risk in superannuation

2024/25 super thresholds – key changes and implications

Why we overlook lifetime annuities

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Are you making these SMSF mistakes?

After four decades advising investors, there are a few common mistakes I've seen SMSF investors make. From holding too much cash and chasing yield to overtrading and trusting tips. Are these errors costing you?

Why have Australian living standards 'fallen' and how do we fix it?

For the last few years there has been much talk of a 'cost-of-living' crisis in Australia and of 'falling living standards'. Lately this has flared up again with the pickup in inflation resulting in a renewed fall in real wages.

Will you run out of money in retirement?

Fear of running out has become a defining retirement anxiety. Why do some retirees die with substantial wealth while others deplete their nest egg? Evidence suggests the answer is more complicated than we think. 

Four options for an income investor’s next dollar

What if Australia’s golden age of dividends is ending? Rather than overhaul your portfolio, it may be worth considering where new capital can work harder. I discuss four income strategies and the trade-offs behind each.

Retirement spending is not one-size-fits-all

New data challenges the idea that Australians are underspending their super. The bigger issue may be helping retirees navigate complexity, make confident decisions and use their savings to support security, wellbeing and choice.

The missing link in the CGT debate

A little-noticed consequence of Labor’s tax changes could have implications well beyond investors’ tax bills. The issue raises bigger questions about incentives, capital allocation and the drivers of long-term economic growth.

Latest Updates

SMSF strategies

Meg on SMSFs: What do we think about reversionary pensions these days?

Reversionary pensions have long been a staple of SMSF estate planning, but are they still the best option? Meg Heffron revisits a once-clear favourite and asks whether changing super rules have shifted the balance.

The ageing ‘crisis’ has not and will not happen

Rising age dependency is frequently treated as a warning sign for economies. But when actual workforce participation is examined, a strikingly different picture emerges about ageing, productivity and economic sustainability.

Retirement

How does the 4% rule stack up?

The 4% rule has long been retirement's gold standard. But after a difficult period for investors, fresh analysis suggests a more conservative approach may significantly improve the chances of making savings last.

Shares

Four charts that expose market concentration risk

Investors have recently been rewarded for backing market leaders, but history suggests this eventually comes at a cost. Now may be the time to review whether your portfolio is carrying unintended risks beneath the surface.

Investment strategies

The case for gearing beyond property

Most Australians gear into property but ignore shares. That may be a mistake. Used carefully, geared equity strategies can enhance long-term returns, reduce cash tied up in growth assets and support retirement income goals.

Economy

Australia's $1 trillion debt pile

The headlines exclaiming that Australian government debt has hit A$1 trillion and US government debt has hit $40 trillion has turned heads, but how serious are they really? Will Australia's mix of debt create challenges?

Economy

Has 100 years of growth made us any happier?

For decades, GDP has been the benchmark for economic success, but has it made us materially happier? If happiness does not rise in lockstep with prosperity, are we overlooking what constitutes a successful society?

Sponsors

Alliances

  • ASA-Logo-RGB-ActiveGreen-web.png

© 2026 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. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. 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.