Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 184

Asset test changes create questionable advice

From 1 January 2017 the asset test taper rate for the aged pension will increase from $1.50 to $3.00 per fortnight for every $1,000 in assets held above the threshold. This has led to some rather dubious analysis and advice suggesting that clients may be better off getting rid of their assets to maximise their age pension entitlement.

The reasoning goes along the following lines:

  • if a retiree’s assets exceed the new threshold by $100,000, their age pension will be reduced by $300 per fortnight or by $7,800 per annum
  • so for a retiree to be better off, they need a return of at least 7.8% on the $100,000
  • if they can’t achieve a return of 7.8%+, then they are better off placing that $100,000 outside of the asset test. They can do this by spending it on renovating the family home, a holiday, pre-paying funeral expenses or gifting the money to children and grandchildren (within the permitted limits).

The ability to draw from capital

This analysis, and the advice flowing from it, is questionable as it ignores the impact on the retiree’s annual ‘income’ from drawing down their capital. The goal of a retirement income strategy should be to maximise the retiree’s sources of cashflow over time. This can be achieved by drawing down savings in combination with a part pension rather than exhausting savings to be eligible for the full pension.

We can compare two scenarios. The first scenario is where a retiree spends the $100,000 (such as on a house) to reduce their assets and be eligible for the full age pension. In the second scenario, they keep the $100,000 invested, drawing down $15,000 each year until the amount is exhausted. For simplicity, this example ignores any drawdown of assets held below the asset test threshold levels.

The following chart compares both scenarios. The first scenario (spending the $100,000 immediately) is shown by the straight black line on the chart. This is the full age pension for a couple of approximately $34,000 per annum (there may also be energy supplements which boost this amount). This is in current dollar terms so the amount does not change over time with inflation.

The second scenario (drawing down the $100,000 over time) is shown by the columns on the chart. The blue section of the column is the part pension that the retirees receive after the reductions for the asset test (note for couple home-owners the income test will only have a greater impact on the pension once assets above the threshold level fall below about $27,000). The red section of the column is the additional income the couple receive each year by drawing down $15,000 from their savings. Assuming an investment return of inflation + 4% per annum, the $100,000 capital not spent on the house provides an income stream of $15,000 per annum for seven years and in year eight the couple can draw down about $13,500.

Not spending on the family home provides higher income

Drawing down their $100,000 as an 'income' stream of $15,000 per annum will, in combination with a part pension, provide a materially higher annual income and standard of living compared with spending their $100,000 in year 1 to maximise their entitlement to the age pension. Of course, the family home has not benefitted from the $100,000 capital spent on it, but nobody knows how much that will improve its value (which may well go to the beneficiaries of the estate in any case).

The faulty reasoning involved in spending the $100,000 in year 1 is a classic example of mental accounting bias. This bias places a different value on a dollar of income and a dollar of accumulated capital in being able to support a retirees’ lifestyle. In this example the retirees have placed a greater value on the ability to access an additional $7,800 in aged pension in year 1, over the $15,000 in additional 'income' from drawing down their accumulated savings.

 

Gordon Thompson CFA is Senior Manager, Platforms, at Perpetual. This article is general information and does not consider the needs of any individual.

 

8 Comments
Dudley.
February 16, 2020

Alternatives to asset test tapering of age pension rate for age qualified are:
1. No pension for those with assets.
2. Same pension rate for all regardless of assets.

Under 1. most will aspire to be destitute.
Under 2. all will aspire to be wealthier.

I find 2. a better outlook.

With 12% super guarantee required to be paid in addition to minimum wage, over a lifetime all full time workers will be self funded by having too much wealth to qualify for age pension under current income and assets test regime.

Greg
February 17, 2020

Nice summary Dudley,

I too find option 2 has a better outlook.

Imaging how much noise/friction/waste would be removed from the system if there was no need to communicate the complexities, analyse the tradeoffs, make choices and manage choices involved with pension qualification criteria.

It would remove costs from the economy at multiple different levels (providers, analysts, advisers, recipients) and free up the time of many minds to concentrate on something more constructive and value creating than finagling the rules to maximise individual circumstances.

Mark Hayden
December 08, 2016

Well done Gordon, that explains how a retiree can benefit in income terms via drawing down some of their capital over time. That is a good visual.

Gary M
December 02, 2016

Agree, Trev, but your second point looks like one of Gordon's arguments - enjoy a lifestyle that your capital allows by drawing it down while you can, and you always have the age pension to fall back on later.

Big Trev
December 02, 2016

There are some assumptions/comparisons here that need exploring.
1) You are comparing what amounts to a risk free rate of return (the age pension) with a real rate of 4 percent. That must by definition, require an exposure to risky assets.
2) You assume that income needs need to increase over time uniformly. They don't. It might not suit your model, but people age and then die. There is a lot to be said for enjoying your money while you can.
3) You also assume that upgrading the family home is sunk cost. In fact, it could add value and equally, may defer or negate future aged care expenses which could be significant.

The real lesson here is that no one size fits all and general pronouncements about one strategy being superior to the other fails to take into account the real purpose of planning a retirement - the individual.

Jack
December 01, 2016

What Gordon says is true. But if you take your $100,000 and put it into your principal residence, you get a different outcome. You improve our age pension payments because you have few assessable assets because the family home is not included in the assets test, but you retain your assets for future use, to downsize, to pay for age care or as an inheritance for your beneficiaries. To do this, you embark on some serious renovations or upsize your house.
The new assets test creates incentives for people to not downsize (and release more assessable assets) and actually spend more on their family home than they probably need. In that sense it is short sighted.
This is as much about behavior as it is about accounting.

David Roberts
December 01, 2016

This has always been my logic. A $ is the same whether it is a dividend, distribution or capital gain. My SMSF is aimed 90% for capital growth picking stocks with low dividends but potentially high ROA, ROE and EPSG/yr. When I need to draw down a pension amount I take it by selling the worst performing stock in terms of capital growth or those that are actually losing money irrespective of their dividend payout. The yld on falling stocks goes up as the price goes down but they may become an ABS or Babcock and Brown and go to zero.

Ashley
December 01, 2016

I question the belief that the goal of a retirement income strategy should be to maximise the retiree’s income over time.

There are plenty of dangerous ways to maximise ‘ïncome”. Surely there more important goals – eg minimizing the likelihood of running of money + relying on the charity of others, losing control of decisions like healthcare, etc, etc – or even building up inter-generational wealth in tax-advantaged environment, etc.

 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

Survey responses on pension eligibility for wealthy homeowners

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

Why are high marginal tax rates bad for workers but good for retirees?

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.