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.

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:

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

Cut tax breaks to make super fairer and the budget stronger

It’s time to do things differently in retirement policy

Reddit v hedge: GameStop rides to the moon and back

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

The case for the $3 million super tax

The Government's proposed tax has copped a lot of flack though I think it's a reasonable approach to improve the long-term sustainability of superannuation and the retirement income system. Here’s why.

7 examples of how the new super tax will be calculated

You've no doubt heard about Division 296. These case studies show what people at various levels above the $3 million threshold might need to pay the ATO, with examples ranging from under $500 to more than $35,000.

The revolt against Baby Boomer wealth

The $3m super tax could be put down to the Government needing money and the wealthy being easy targets. It’s deeper than that though and this looks at the factors behind the policy and why more taxes on the wealthy are coming.

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

The super tax and the defined benefits scandal

Australia's superannuation inequities date back to poor decisions made by Parliament two decades ago. If super for the wealthy needs resetting, so too does the defined benefits schemes for our public servants.

Are franking credits hurting Australia’s economy?

Business investment and per capita GDP have languished over the past decade and the Labor Government is conducting inquiries to find out why. Franking credits should be part of the debate about our stalling economy.

Latest Updates

Superannuation

Here's what should replace the $3 million super tax

With Div. 296 looming, is there a smarter way to tax superannuation? This proposes a fairer, income-linked alternative that respects compounding, ensures predictability, and avoids taxing unrealised capital gains. 

Superannuation

Less than 1% of wealthy families will struggle to pay super tax: study

An ANU study has found that families with at least one super balance over $3 million have average wealth exceeding $19 million - suggesting most are well placed to absorb taxes on unrealised capital gains.   

Superannuation

Are SMSFs getting too much of a free ride?

SMSFs have managed to match, or even outperform, larger super funds despite adopting more conservative investment strategies. This looks at how they've done it - and the potential policy implications.  

Property

A developer's take on Australia's housing issues

Stockland’s development chief discusses supply constraints, government initiatives and the impact of Japanese-owned homebuilders on the industry. He also talks of green shoots in a troubled property market.

Economy

Lessons from 100 years of growing US debt

As the US debt ceiling looms, the usual warnings about a potential crash in bond and equity markets have started to appear. Investors can take confidence from history but should keep an eye on two main indicators.

Investment strategies

Investors might be paying too much for familiarity

US mega-cap tech stocks have dominated recent returns - but is familiarity distorting judgement? Like the Monty Hall problem, investing success often comes from switching when it feels hardest to do so.

Latest from Morningstar

A winning investment strategy sitting right under your nose

How does a strategy built around systematically buying-and-holding a basket of the market's biggest losers perform? It turns out pretty well, so why don't more investors do it?

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 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.