Home / 298

Rethinking home equity and retirement funding

Australians are experiencing a major societal transformation as the baby boomers, around 5.5 million people born between 1946 and 1964, are reaching retirement. While they are living longer than ever, it presents a conundrum – many of this cohort simply don’t have sufficient superannuation to fund a comfortable retirement for their projected lifespan.

Australians are living longer

The life expectancy of Australians in retirement has almost doubled in the last 150 years due to better lifestyles and medical breakthroughs. Since the introduction of compulsory superannuation in 1992, Australians at retirement have gained an extra decade of longevity.

Figure 1 shows the range of expected increases in longevity after retirement for Australian men and women based on current assumptions. It is estimated that retirees aged 65 now will live on average until 84 for men and 87 for women.

Figure 1: Historic and future life expectancy for Australian men and women aged 65

The blessing of longevity is a new and extended phase of life which will endure well past 90 years-of-age for many people. The downside is that individuals should plan for 25-30 years of retirement.

Retirees are not always prepared

According to the Credit Suisse Research Institute Global Wealth Report 2018, Australians have the highest median wealth per adult. Despite this, retired Australians experience high levels of relative poverty, as shown in Figure 2. When compulsory superannuation was introduced in 1992, many baby boomers were more than halfway through their working life, and they missed out on the benefits of compounding returns over time. As a result, the median household superannuation balance for retiring Australians currently sits around $200,000, estimated to support a ‘comfortable’ retirement income for just 10-15 years.

Figure 2: Percentage of those aged 65+ living in poverty

Most baby boomers were busy paying off their mortgages, with approximately 80% of retirees owning their own home. For most home-owning Australians, the majority of their wealth is tied up in their home equity. In total, there is over $900 billion in untapped home equity owned by Australian retirees, according to the Productivity Commission.

Long, healthy lives enable Australians to spend a greater part of their retirement living independently. Most retirees prefer to stay in their own home as they age, as illustrated by Figure 3, and this untapped savings pool is a valuable resource that could be utilised to provide improved retirement funding.

Figure 3: Importance of remaining at home in retirement

How can investors access home equity?

There are four main approaches used by retirees to access home equity, as shown in Figure 4. Each of these approaches has downsides in terms of cost of access, security of tenure in the home or the ability to fund a long-term retirement income.

Figure 4: Approaches to access home equity

Source: Household Capital

The reverse mortgage experience

A. Overseas 

Canada and the United Kingdom have a similar demographic composition to Australia with an ageing workforce and a large baby boomer cohort entering retirement. Residential property values have skyrocketed in these markets and many individuals approaching retirement are asset rich, cash poor, with home equity significantly outweighing the value of retirement savings.

There has been significant growth in reverse mortgages used to fund long-term retirement income streams in these markets, with both Canada and UK experiencing 30% growth, year on year since 2013.

B. Australia 

Traditional bank reverse mortgages were generally unaligned with the long-term housing and funding needs of Australian retirees, and therefore failed to provide genuine retirement funding adequacy and certainty. These products failed to meet the widespread needs of Australian retirees, including:

  1. Adverse selection – seen as a form of ‘last resort’ financing for many older Australians, historical access of home equity was often for inappropriate purposes for potentially distressed borrowers. These circumstances provide a recipe for dissatisfaction for the product and the provider.
  2. Misaligned distribution – while financial advice was often recommended, access to home equity in Australia was never directly linked to long-term retirement planning or financial advice. It left many borrowers cash poor and asset depleted throughout the remainder of their lives.
  3. Short-term consumption of equity – according to a recent ASIC review of reverse mortgage lending, the application process historically focused primarily on the borrower’s short-term objectives, with limited attention paid to future needs.
  4. Lack of intergenerational transfers – traditional reverse mortgages failed to provide a structured mechanism to satisfy the long-term retirement income needs of a borrower and enable the responsible transfer of home equity to subsequent generations at a time they incur major lifetime expenses.

By the end of 2018, CBA, Westpac and Macquarie, the three big-bank providers of traditional reverse mortgages, had all withdrawn from the Australian market. Reasons for the withdrawal include: the Royal Commission, proposed APRA capital risk weighting changes, an inability to scale the traditional reverse mortgage product, and perceived reputational risks. Since the withdrawal of the major banks, Australian retirees have been left without widespread access to their home equity as a means to fund retirement.

The future of home equity

The next generation of home equity lending must identify a range of responsible retirement funding needs, and overcome the shortcomings of traditional reverse mortgages. Two guiding principles should govern this approach.

First, long-term retirement funding needs are responsibly met by the transfer of illiquid home equity into appreciating, diversified assets in a more liquid form. The improved accessibility can meet those funding needs over time.

Second, funding availability is constrained to prevent spending for short-term consumption or deployment into depreciating assets.

By restructuring responsible access to home equity, retirees can receive multiple benefits:

  1. Access to savings – where the majority of lifetime savings are in the home.
  2. More reliable retirement income – for some retirees, income is volatile relative to the performance of superannuation and home equity can smooth income and capital supply.
  3. Asset diversification – as superannuation is depleted, retirees’ assets become increasingly concentrated in a single residential property, and a transfer to superannuation can diversify assets.
  4. Long-term financial advice – higher super balances during retirement create benefits that come from holistic management of household savings.
  5. Sequencing risk management – responsible, long-term access to home equity adds a second, independent, largely uncorrelated source of income should super assets decline periodically, especially where age pensions are inadequate.
  6. Imputed rent annuity – non-recourse borrowing provides certainty of occupancy of the home, increasing the annuity value of long-term imputed rent and enhancing real retirement incomes.

Traditionally, Australia’s retirement income policy has been framed as having three pillars: superannuation, non-superannuation savings and the age pension. It is time to include the fourth, and largest, pillar of retirement funding: home equity. By drawing on multiple sources of income, Australian retirees can achieve funding adequacy throughout the full course of 25-plus years of retirement. To do this, however, retirees must be able to responsibly and cost-effectively access home equity savings to generate retirement income.

 

Joshua Funder is Chief Executive Officer of Household Capital. This article is general information and does not consider the circumstances of any investor.

RELATED ARTICLES

Reverse mortgages: short-term gain, long-term pain

Pension Loans Scheme should have much greater use

Home equity release, the fourth pillar of retirement funding

6 Comments

Jeff

March 24, 2019

The big issues remain -

1. The govt should be properly incorporated your home into govt tax and welfare system (both govt pension and social housing).....lots of inquiries but no real action/progress

2. The great need for disinterested/ best advice - no one is providing this!!! Not the govt/centrelink to govt pensioners, super trustees to its members or banks to their customers etc
Go find an independent advisor - the service may will attract a fee but well worth getting a tailored plan for your benefit and your beneficiaries!!!

Agee

1. Your home is the fourth pillar of after savings/wealth ...not just in retirement - so needs to be incorporated pre and post retirement

2. Unlocking savings in your home is a good strategy for some people

3. New PLS is a much better rate @5.25% - go see Centrelink but get tailored advice!!

Rae Patterson

March 22, 2019

The aged pension should be assessed in a similar way to aged care.Those with large homes and larger out goings may need a higher pension to cover their outgoing expenses.
Property should be valued and the pension paid should be repaid out of the persons estate .
If this was to be introduced many people would not run down their capital to qualify for the pension.
This is the only way the pension and quality aged care is sustainable in the future.

Dudley

March 22, 2019

Age Pension for all qualified at 70% of current payment rate would eliminate the Assets Test Taper Rate.

Progressive reduction as Superannuation Guarantee (SG) increases retirement capital.

SG ~$3,000 / y required from 25 to 65. Doable within existing parameters.

Kevin

March 21, 2019

In general I agree with Jack and Peter.

The article says home equity invested.I did what I thought was the right thing,I did that for 30 years,I think I paid the house off 3 or 4 times with constant redraw to invest.

People were scared to do that,they did not seem to understand why I did that.Compounding was then my friend,the growth in the shares with dividends reinvested,the years to keep paying off the loan.

If people have not understood that for their working lives,how are they suddenly going to understand it when they turn 65 or 66.

The cost benefit analysis looks great in theory,say get 8% gross yield on CBA.The loan costs 5%.What happens when they see CBA tank,a large drop in price.I don' t think that probably great worry is what they need.

Also the compounding that was my greatest friend is now my greatest enemy in retirement.

Could this be a ploy by the industry.We have taken a % of your super every year,in retirement we would now like a % age of your house and super.

I have always thought the retirement system was bad since the day it started ( 1987 and 1992 for the SGC?)
Small companies just refused to pay the pay rise in 1987 that we gave up to start super.Thus the SGC in 1992.

I think means testing has a lot to answer for,try to get ahead and the govt takes the pension off you.Expect a pension and a small amount of super and they change the rules to try to reduce your pension.

I should add under the present system it is better for the individual not to get any pension and have a decent retirement income.

I wonder if the day will come when we are told spend a % age of your super,this will last X years,then come and see us,do a financial striptease and we may give you social security.After we habe treated you like a criminal for applying.

Just my thoughts.

Peter Stewart

March 21, 2019

It is amazing to see the use of home equity release be applied to investment purposes, in or outside of superannuation, in later life when risks should be minimised.

The average household has $355,000 in super at the time of retirement. (ASFA 2016). If, as the writer suggests, accessing home equity into super, will immediately have a reduction in age pension once drawdown has commenced.
$300,0000 additional super input on the average household will see the age pension reduce from $36,192 to $11,440.
Cannot see how the loss of age pension, equivalent to 8% of the additional $300,000, plus the 5.9% cost of interest, plus a return on investment, has "best interest" considerations.
If retirees need additional income in retirement, use either PLS at 5.25%, or a standard reverse mortgage. Interest, no matter what rate, is only charged on the drawn down amount

Jack

March 21, 2019

If we “eat” the family home during retirement, how do we pay for age care?


 

Leave a Comment:

     

Most Viewed

Retirees facing steep increases for basic items

ASFA has updated its tables on how much money is needed for a 'comfortable' or 'modest' lifestyle in retirement, but there are some unavoidable prices rising well ahead of inflation.

Let’s stop calling them ‘bond proxies’

With cash and term deposit rates at all-time lows, and fixed interest bonds not much better, investors are looking for ‘bond proxies’ to deliver more income. But is ‘proxy’ a misnomer, and what are they anyway?

Adele Ferguson on ‘Banking Bad’ and weaving magic

The journalist most responsible for the calling of the Royal Commission takes care not to be roped in by everyone with a complaint to push. It takes experienced judgement to gather the right information.

Six warning bells against property spruikers

Property spruikers use common techniques, and con men will increasingly target older people who feel they do not have enough financial independence for their retirement years.

Helping your children build their super

It has become more difficult to build large superannuation balances with contribution caps and more people paying off home loans for longer. How can wealthy parents help their adult children?

Betashares

banner

Sponsors

Alliances

Special eBooks

Specially-selected collections of the best articles 

Read more

Earn CPD Hours

Accredited CPD hours reading Firstlinks

Read more

Pandora Archive

Firstlinks articles are collected in Pandora, Australia's national archive.

Read more