Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 15

How much variability exists in retirement outcomes?

Many of the articles in Cuffelinks and other forums make reference to the impact of different risks on retirement outcomes. The risk factors most commonly mentioned are investment returns and mortality risk. There are many other factors including inflation and wage outcomes and our level of discretionary savings. However the big question remains largely unanswered: given all these risks what is the variability in retirement financial outcomes?

This is a difficult question as there is surprisingly little research on this subject. Both Treasury and Rice Warner project retirement outcomes but only produce point estimates. Point estimates are dangerous pieces of information if used in isolation. They are in effect expectations, yet we know little of the variation around the expectation. For individuals this risk creates false confidence in an uncertain outcome and leaves policy makers in a position where they are uncertain whether all possible retirement outcomes produced by the retirement income system are acceptable.

Simulating the financial outcomes

So I investigated this as the core question of my 2011 academic paper titled “Variability in the Projected Financial Outcomes of Australians.” At the heart of this paper is a large lifecycle model which simulates the financial outcomes of single income households (double income households is extremely complex and a project for another day!). There are two aspects to the model. First, it simulates all the financial aspects of a household through their lifecycle. Second, it introduces variability by allowing some of the factors (for instance, investment returns) to experience random outcomes (around an average). We then simulate outcomes (generally 20,000 for each defined situation) and this provides insight to the variability in possible outcomes.

It is important in this type of research that the model faithfully represents the wealth management actions and exposures of a household. In modelling the working years (the accumulation phase), I assume that we work, earn income, pay taxes, consume, purchase a house, and accumulate savings (in superannuation and other forms). In retirement, we draw down on our accumulated savings, we may receive the age pension (subject to means testing), we may pay tax and we consume to an uncertain age of death. All taxes and other rules associated with income, super and pension are modelled.

I introduce variability into the model by allowing some factor outcomes to have an element of randomness, around an expectation. These factors are real wages, real investment returns, variability in mortality outcomes, and some variability in savings rates across households.

What were the results?

The results are measured in terms of replacement rate outcomes, and more specifically the expenditure replacement rate. An expenditure replacement rate compares what we have available in retirement as a percentage of our pre-retirement expenditure levels (think what you have available to spend as a proportion of your previous gross income less taxes and savings). The results are presented for a female (the ‘standard’ case used by Treasury – male outcomes are quite similar). The modelling considers outcomes based on households experiencing different levels of income (represented as a multiple of AWOTE – Average Weekly Ordinary Time Earnings of approximately $70,000 pa). This is also consistent with how Treasury measures retirement financial outcomes. The distribution of outcomes is presented in the panel diagram below.

DS replacement

DS replacement

In the diagrams above the number at the top (eg. 0.75 in Panel A) represents the income of the household as a multiple of AWOTE. That is, 75% of $70,000, or about $52,000.

What do we see above? First, it appears that variability is quite large across all households, and is skewed to the right, meaning that surprises are generally to the upside, which is good. This can be explained by the safety net effect provided by the age pension.

We can also see that variability increases as household income increases. This is because high income households generally self-fund a greater portion of their own retirement making them more vulnerable to investment market outcomes.

Summary numbers corresponding to the diagrams above are provided in the table below:

 

Earnings Multiple of AWOTE*

 



0.75x

 

1.0x

 

1.5x

 

2.5x

 


Expected Replacement Rate (RR) Outcome (%)

81.1

 

68.4

 

56.0

 

61.0

 


Median RR Outcome (%)

79.8

 

66.9

 

53.3

 

56.7

 


Standard Deviation of RR Outcomes (%)

9.6

 

9.5

 

11.8

 

19.3

 


RR Outcome 5th Percentile (%)

68.1

 

56.3

 

43.3

 

38.3

 


RR Outcome 95th Percentile (%)

98.3

 

85.2

 

77.4

 

97.8

 




 

How do we interpret this information?

In talking to a high income household earning 250% of AWOTE, we could say that we expect you to have a 61% expenditure replacement rate. They might say that sounds acceptable. Then you should say there is large variability around this estimate and that a 5% worse case event (ie a one-in-twenty likelihood of this or a worse outcome) is an expenditure replacement rate of 38.3% of pre-retirement expenditure. Is this palatable? If not then this variability can be partially managed through the investment and savings decisions we make.

However, a lower income household on 75% of AWOTE should expect an 81% expenditure replacement rate, which falls to a reasonable 68% at the 5% worse case level.

While this research is probably the most detailed in terms of calculating variability, it can always be improved. For instance when I presented this work at a conference it was suggested that I should also have considered the risk to employment outcomes (unemployment risk and the chance of promotion). But as it stands this represents useful information.

Influence of individual risk factors

You may be curious to know which of the individual risk factors contributed most to variability in outcomes. The answer differs by household type. For all households investment risk was the largest contributor to overall variability in outcomes, but especially so for high income households. Household savings rate was important for high income households (high income (top quartile) households are responsible for nearly all of Australia’s household savings (ex-super) and there is a large dispersion of savings amongst households).

Mortality risk has a curious impact across households. For low income households outcomes are improved if you live longer, as relative to inflation the age pension delivers generous indexation which leads to better outcomes the longer you live. However for high income households outcomes are better if you do not live long as you have less chance of exhausting savings and being forced onto an age pension which is well below the level of income you historically experienced.

This research highlights the responsibilities of all in the industry: whether we are policymakers, super funds, wealth managers or financial planners, we are all responsible for contributing to the achievement of retirement outcomes. These outcomes are not just an expectation or a mean: retirement financial outcomes have variability and it is important that this variability is measured, managed for and communicated with those saving for retirement.

It’s useful to focus the mind on how living on 38% of pre-retirement income might affect the plans to travel around the world or build a wooden boat, even if it has only a 5% chance.

2 Comments
John Burnett
May 21, 2013

David

The results for the 1.5 times AWOTE group look particularly interesting (such as the 95th percenitle outcome). Could you comment further please?

Regards

John

David Bell
May 21, 2013

Hi John,

In terms of the replacement rates it is actually the third quartile (the 1.5x) that I think will be in for the rudest retirement shock!

The reason is that they feel wealthy from an income perspective but in retirement the replacement rate could be quite low. Why?

- The superannuation they accumulate, particularly before the system becomes fully seasoned (ie a whole working career contributing 9+%), will not create a balance that is a high proportion of their pre-retirement income

- The Aged Pension is a long way below the income they earn in their working years (so the hit to replacement rates if they exhaust their retirement savings is larger)

- The third quartile of Australian’s has surprisingly low levels of personal savings (beyond their house). They feel reasonably well off but by the time they live a reasonable lifestyle – a house, a decent car, holidays and school fees there is little left to save. There are some ABS stats that show that the top quartile of Australian income earners do nearly all of Australia’s private saving. This is simply because they have the greatest potential to have some excess capital left over. This explains why the diagram jumps back up (whereas other researchers may produce a diagram which continues down because they do not factor in additional savings).

Cheers,

David

 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

It’s time to do things differently in retirement policy

Reddit v hedge: GameStop rides to the moon and back

Why not use options to protect your share portfolio?

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

Superannuation

The 'Contrast Principle' used by super fund test failures

Rather than compare results against APRA's benchmark, large super funds which failed the YFYS performance test are using another measure such as a CPI+ target, with more favourable results to show their members.

Property

RBA switched rate priority on house prices versus jobs

RBA Governor, Philip Lowe, says that surging house prices are not as important as full employment, but a previous Governor, Glenn Stevens, had other priorities, putting the "elevated level of house prices" first.

Investment strategies

Disruptive innovation and the Tesla valuation debate

Two prominent fund managers with strongly opposing views and techniques. Cathie Wood thinks Tesla is going to US$3,000, Rob Arnott says it's already a bubble at US$750. They debate valuing growth and disruption.

Shares

4 key materials for batteries and 9 companies that will benefit

Four key materials are required for battery production as we head towards 30X the number of electric cars. It opens exciting opportunities for Australian companies as the country aims to become a regional hub.

Shares

Why valuation multiples fail in an exponential world

Estimating the value of a company based on a multiple of earnings is a common investment analysis technique, but it is often useless. Multiples do a poor job of valuing the best growth businesses, like Microsoft.

Shares

Five value chains driving the ‘transition winners’

The ability to adapt to change makes a company more likely to sustain today’s profitability. There are five value chains plus a focus on cashflow and asset growth that the 'transition winners' are adopting.

Superannuation

Halving super drawdowns helps wealthy retirees most

At the start of COVID, the Government allowed early access to super, but in a strange twist, others were permitted to leave money in tax-advantaged super for another year. It helped the wealthy and should not be repeated.

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.