Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 624

Inflation cruels a comfortable retirement

The association representing super funds, ASFA, has released research that a home owning couple needs just $690,000 in super, as a minimum, to have a 'comfortable' retirement.

A single retiring homeowner needs $595,000.

Also, ASFA suggests that annual retirement income, to be deemed comfortable, needs to be just $74,000 per annum (p.a.) for a couple and $52,000 p.a. for a single - both representing between 50% to 70% of average wages (tax affected).

By drawing the mandatory 4% p.a. from their super (as a pension), the difference is made up from the full entitlement (or drawing) of the ‘means tested’ Commonwealth pension. Commonwealth Health card benefits would be essential for these low-income retirees.

Clearly a couple or an individual with less in super than ASFA’s minimum at retirement will have an extremely uncomfortable retirement. People who also rent and have less in super are also destined for a difficult and problematic retirement. The extent of the discomfort will be determined by access to non-super assets. There are still over 20% of Australians who retire without a super account.

ASFA provides information on what expenditure that is covered by this income, but it’s arguably flawed as it quotes averages and doesn’t differentiate by age or health. AFSA makes no mention of retirees who rent.

In any case, it should not be a surprise, though it should be disturbing, that a majority of today’s retirees, men or women, enter retirement with less than what is required to meet ASFA's comfortable level. After 33 years of compulsory super, this is a sobering observation.

But there is good news, according to ASFA, who suggest that the average 30-year-old who today has $30,000 in super, and will earn the average wage, will reach the equivalent of today's $595,000 by age 67. I will consider what this means later, but I do acknowledge that the compulsory 12% p.a. contribution rate helps the future look better than both the past and the present.

Today’s average super balances

The ABS has produced the following table, as of 2024, detailing the average super balances for each age cohort. It suggests that the average ‘single’ retiree (65 to 69) will retire with less than enough to achieve a comfortable retirement. Average married couples (male and female) in general will have enough.

However, retiring low-income earners need to navigate the ‘assets test’ for the full entitlement to a Commonwealth pension. Having just enough may be better than having slightly too much as the Commonwealth pension is adjusted downward accordingly. This is where the much-maligned financial advisor comes into their element in strategic advice.

Superannuation in future

ASFA references how the 30-year-old of today will retire at 67 in 2062, and that opens up some questions:

  • How will today’s $595,000 - the minimum needed by a single, retiring homeowner, according to ASFA - be measured in 2062 dollars?
  • What will an annual pension payment require to equal today’s $52,000 for a single?
  • What affect does inflation and the compounding of the cost of living and average wages mean for a future comfortable retirement?

Assuming a moderate 4% growth in annual ‘average wages’ (pretax to match inflation plus 1%), and the same ratio of drawings from super and the Commonwealth pension, the requirements in 2062 dollars for an individual retiree are:

  • $2.5 million in the individual's retirement fund; and
  • An income of $220,000 p.a. of which $100,000 is drawn pension, with about $120,000 p.a. coming from the Commonwealth pension.

Quite simply stated, even multimillion-dollar retirement accounts will not be enough to enter a ‘comfortable retirement’ in 2062. Compounding inflation fairly covered by average wage rises create this consequence.

Clearly the proposed non indexed unrealised capital gains tax targeting $3 million super accounts will hit millions of retirees over time - and many of these retirees will be average workers on average retirement benefits.

Even in 2062, some 70 years after the introduction of mandatory super, it is likely that more than 50% of retirees will still need to draw a full or part Commonwealth pension even if they retire with over $2 million in their super account.

Concluding thoughts

My points are simple:

  1. Australia's account-based superannuation system is flawed - it is well past time to acknowledge this.
  2. It would have been much better, and there still may be time, for the creation of a national mandatory contributory pension scheme that targets a 60% of average wage pension to all retirees. A 'reasonable asset tested' savings pension account (with a reduced earnings tax) could be an adjunct to the national pension scheme and thus most current super accounts would already comply.
  3. The government should junk the unrealised capital gains tax proposal as it is an intellectually limited tax policy inside a flawed super system.
  4. Indexing of taxation bands, both inside and outside super (i.e. wages), should be mandatory for both tax regulation and fiscal integrity.
  5. The defined benefit pensions inside Commonwealth and State schemes need to be much more transparent. They need to be both funded and taxed, consistent with a sustainable and fair national retirement scheme developed for all Australians; and
  6. The persistent adding to inflation, through the indexing of government charges, needs curtailing. Government indexed charges make the ambition of a ‘comfortable retirement’ simply unattainable for many.

 

John Abernethy is Founder and Chairman of Clime Investment Management Limited, a sponsor of Firstlinks. The information contained in this article is of a general nature only. The author has not taken into account the goals, objectives, or personal circumstances of any person (and is current as at the date of publishing).

For more articles and papers from Clime, click here.

 

39 Comments
Lauchlan
August 19, 2025

The conclusions don’t really follow from the article. It’s like he considers everything carefully, and then goes “and here’s what I really think” and says the opposite.

For example, his conclusion says the mandatory contribution defined contribution super system is deeply flawed and needs to be replaced with a pension system. Nothing in the article supports this. It points out that super will be successful in lifting 50% of Australians, on an average wage and with minimum contributions, into a comfortable retirement. It also ignores that people don’t have to make minimum contributions - they can make additional concessional or non-concessional contributions.

In other words, this is two articles - one that makes sense, followed by another, an unjustified opinion not backed by logic or argument.

John Abernethy
August 19, 2025

Thanks Lachlan

My view - which was supported by the facts - acknowledged by you - led to conclusions and suggestions.

You say that compulsory super will lift 50% of average ( ie the majority) of workers into a comfortable retirement. That is a mediocre result and a failure of policy.

The target of retirement policy should be 90% into comfortable retirement but aspire to 100%.

The current system won’t reach either and it needs a reset. Mine are suggestions in a debate that is not actually happening.

Francis H
August 19, 2025

The low balances of many current retirees arise because of the set and forget mindset. Many current retirees just rely on the super guarantee which is only now at 12%. There should have been a requirement for employees to contribute an equal % of after tax wages to super. The Commonwealth defined benefit schemes required this as did many Corporate schemes. The set and forget mindset can work with those schemes. A way to address this now would be to allow anyone over 45 to salary sacrifice much more than they are allowed to currently, say $50k per year in addition to the super guarantee. I agree with the indexing of tax bands. It should have been done when the GST was introduced. Also I agree Government indexing of their charges needs curtailing as it contributes to inflation. We are a high cost country with high cost of living. We used to be a relatively cheap place to live, not anymore. Only the wealthy can afford to go to a restaurant or pub these days. Certainly not most retirees.

James#
August 19, 2025

"Only the wealthy can afford to go to a restaurant or pub these days. Certainly not most retirees."

Must be a lot of wealthy people then, as pubs, restaurants and cafes are packed!

Dudley
August 19, 2025

"Must be a lot of wealthy people then, as pubs, restaurants and cafes are packed!":

Mort-gagors borrowing from the bankers of wealthy people who own the pubs, restaurants and cafes.

Francis H
August 20, 2025

James, not with retirees in my neck of the woods. Maybe with young people who have given up on a home and just decided to enjoy themselves. Or with lawn mower people who are the new wealthy.

John Abernethy
August 19, 2025

Thank you Francis

You have made an interesting comment regarding Defined Benefit Pensions.

Some past DB schemes did not have a contributory element and hence the widening shortfall - assets to liabilities - that the Future Fund acknowledges.

The latest estimate of the shortfall is circa $75 billion and it will not peak in the next decade and even assuming a 7% pa return on assets.

Francis H
August 20, 2025

John, not sure what DB schemes did not have a contributory element. I was in the Commonwealth CSS and PSS schemes and both required employee contributions. Maybe the old 1922 scheme did not require contributions but there would be few if any pensioners in those schemes or still living. Also not sure about the military schemes.

John Abernethy
August 20, 2025

Hi Francis

Unfunded or partially contributed DB funds are described as below on the ATO website. They do exist and that is why the stated liabilities of the Future Fund are over $300 billion and still rising.

“Unfunded defined benefit funds include the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme (CSS), Public Superannuation Scheme (PSS), Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits (DFRDB) scheme and other funds for government employees. Many unfunded super funds also have funded components, defined as partially unfunded.
Unfunded defined benefit contributions are the amounts by which your defined benefit contributions exceed your notional taxed contributions if you're a member of an unfunded or partially unfunded defined benefit fund.”

Mark Hayden
August 18, 2025

Excellent points John. Those 6 concluding thoughts should be raised at the Economic Reform Roundtable. It may be wishful thinking, but I hope such points can be raised.

Scott
August 17, 2025

The ASFA standard is, and always has been, a politically moderated figure so as not to scare the population and to keep them contributing to the system. The incentive is not to drive people’s interest away - just dangle the carrot slightly in front of where they are and frame it with summative stats. By the time they hit retirement they’re still stuffed but those glorious fees have been made for decades.

Bluey
August 17, 2025

As Mike Tyson said ‘everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face’.. increased healthcare costs as people get live longer and more treatment options are discovered, increased taxes as governments have to find more money from fewer workers, increased insurance because more natural disasters….

OldbutSane
August 15, 2025

Sorry, don't agree. Inflation in the last 5 years has been higher than for some time, but asset prices have increased (often by more than inflation). As a fully self funded retiree I am significantly better off now than I was 5 years ago (or 20 years ago when I retired).

John Abernethy
August 15, 2025

A good comment but a little self centric.

I agree that we have had a period of both consumer price and asset inflation. As you imply, many assets have inflated faster than CPI measured by - for example- higher PERs
(equities) and declining yields ( residential property).

However, looking forward, as I have done, the question of sustainability must be considered.

Retirees living in houses that have significantly revalued when measured against average incomes are happy. Young families that need to buy a house are looking at a massive amount of leverage to create a household with 2 children.

Ofcourse the more that is borrowed then the more that must be directed to providing accomodation and less to saving for retirement.

Thus, upon the opportunity of the a super release, funds are withdrawn to pay off the mortgage and utilise the Commonwealth pension.



Old super hand
August 15, 2025

John says that ASFA doesn’t differentiate by age or health and makes no mention of retirees who rent.
ASFA publishes separate budgets for those 85 and over, and they now have budgets at the modest level for those in private rental.
https://www.superannuation.asn.au/consumers/retirement-standard/

john
August 14, 2025

For a start; 12% into super is not needed over a working life. 10% would be more than sufficient provided the fund manager is competent (whether industry super, retail or other) and grows at close to the 10% per annum. 4% drawdown therefore would be the absolute minimum. I would suggest more like at 7% in retirement and even then the principal is still growing. Best to go back to where everyone receives the govt aged pension. The govt does not miss out because all are back in the tax system and gets rid of a lot of bureaucracy

Nadal
August 15, 2025

Expecting an average 10%pa investment return over three decades of retirement is ambitious / prone to failure; to get anywhere near that you would need 100% invested in high growth assets and hope that there are no GFC type events.
(Apologies if I have misunderstood what you meant by "grows at close to the 10% per annum".)

Aussie HIFIRE
August 14, 2025

The idea that those who retire and have less than $74,000 a year in income are in for an "extremely uncomfortable retirement" is just ridiculous. A couple could have a new car and $400k in super, draw down $20k a year from that (inflation adjusted) and get the full age pension of $45k pa for an income of $65k a year. No mortgage, no dependents, and you should be easily able to have a great standard of living on that amount of money. As a family of four with two young children we spent less than that last year with top health cover and $10,000 on an overseas holiday.

John Abernethy
August 15, 2025

On a bell curve representation the bulk of average young families with 2 young children ( parents under 40 yo) would have a mortgage ( average $800k in Sydney) that requires them to pay $40k to $45k pa in repayments and interest.

Similarly, an average renting young family would be paying at least $800k per week ( 2 bedroom apartment). $40k pa

On the bell curve you appear to be an outlier - ie not average or inside the 90% range for the bell curve. You represent as a homeowner with no mortgage with 2 young children.

By not having accommodation costs ( remember there are also council rates etc) you can obviously live - as you say - with moderate expenses.

But as young children grow older expenses will surely increase.

As for older retirees - I reiterate my point - in 30 years time inflation and indexing will mean that the average pre tax wage will surely at least double and the cost of living ( after tax) will surely also double.

That will apply whether you are a young couple or a retiree. But the young couple has a more acute problem if they want to have children - and Australia desperately needs children.

Aussie HIFIRE
August 15, 2025

Thanks for the response John. As you say I'm an outlier as a couple with a young family as we don't have a mortgage. But that makes me much more comparable to a retired couple who also very likely don't have a mortgage. And yet my household spending with two children is less than $65k including a nice overseas holiday and a very comfortable standard of living, but you are saying that less than $74k pa makes for an "extremely uncomfortable retirement". That simply is not my experience at all. We eat out, we go to sporting and cultural events, we go on holidays both domestic and abroad, have top health cover, and live a great lifestyle. Once the mortgage is paid off life can be lived for a lot less money, and this is true of most pensioners.

Dudley
August 15, 2025

"those who retire":
are not
"average young families with 2 young children":

'average interest rate for new home loans in June 2025 (Reserve Bank of Australia)':
= 5.68%
https://moneysmart.gov.au/home-loans/mortgage-calculator
= PMT(5.68% / 12, 30 * 12, -800000, 0) * 12
= $55,596.83 / y.

It is 'abnormal' to be "homeowner with no mortgage with 2 young children" in Sydney.
Good management or luck.

"cost of living ( after tax) will surely also double":
= (1 + 2.5%) ^ 30
= 2.097567579
Mitigated when after tax returns exceed inflation.

Negative real returns are tolerable where retiree has large capital to expense ratio:
Minimum average net real total return per year required throughout retirement:
https://iili.io/JV1zXJp.png
[ https://freeimage.host/i/image.JV1zXJp ]
Example: Cell C5; with capital 128 times expenses, can lose 1.92% every year until death in 64 years from present.

Dudley
August 15, 2025

"Once the mortgage is paid off life can be lived for a lot less money, and this is true of most pensioners.":

Best to completely avoid mort-gages, and rent. Financial sinkholes roughly $60,000 / y that could otherwise be saved.

= FV((1 + (1 - 15%) * 5%) / (1 + 2.5%) - 1, 30, -60000, 0)
= $2,325,582.07 real, net, low risk capital.



Dudley
August 14, 2025

The Age Pension alone provides home owners with a comfortable retirement.

26 * $1,732.20 / f = $45,037.20 / y.
Tax free, no effort, no capital, no risk, inflation adjusted, senior discounts and fringe benefits, ...

Earnings on, and drawdown from, the Full Age Pension Means Test Maximum Assessable Assets of $481,500 provides additional cashflow of :
= PMT((1 + 5%) / (1 + 2.5%) - 1, (87 - 67), -481500, 0)
= $30,709.22 / y

Total real cashflow:
= $45,037.20 / y + $30,709.22 / y
= $75,746.42 / y

Beyond comfortable; 'Living It Up'.

For larger drawdown cashflow need more than:
= PV((1 + 5%) / (1 + 2.5%) - 1, (87 - 67), 75746.42, 0)
= -$1,187,653.16 (-=in fund)

Disgruntled
August 15, 2025

Your definition of comfortable differs from the many, Dudley

Dudley
August 15, 2025

The many.
Comfortable:
'cozy, snug, easy, restful mean enjoying or providing a position of contentment and security. comfortable applies to anything that encourages serenity, well-being, or complacency as well as physical ease.'

I do prefer not numb.

Pre-retirees consider what is left:
Gross income - Tax - Debt payments - Expenses - Savings = Comfit margin.

Retirees consider what what is left:
Capital downdraw - Expenses = Comfit margin.

Retirees do not have:
Tax, Debt, Savings payments to make.

Disgruntled
August 15, 2025

Context matters.

Aged pension alone provides a comfortable retirement.

No, it doesn't. It provides a frugal retirement.

Dudley
August 15, 2025

"frugal retirement":

Frugality is more comfortable, and healthier, than profligacy.

Less buying, maintaining and chucking.

Dudley
August 16, 2025

Cost of comfort.

Workers have about 80 days of free time per year.
Retirees have the inverse, about (365 - 80) = 285 days free time per year.

After tax, debt, saving, workers have less to spend on recreation and much less time to spend it in resulting is a larger cash per day of free time expenditure rate than retirees.

Workers tend to expect their cash burn rate need in retirement to be similar to when working.

For those wanting 'catchup' travel and the like after a hectic domestic and working life take time to adjust to a smaller, more comfortable, cash burn rate.

Disgruntled
August 16, 2025

Frugality is more comfortable, and healthier, than profligacy.

You're entitled to your opinion, even if it is wrong, Dudley.

Balance is the key.

What's the point in working all your life to retire on Maggi 2 minute noodles and watch Youtube Videos?

For the many entering into retirement, that surely is not their idea of a comfortable retirement

Same as your preposterous idea of the young ones saving 80% of their wages. Reality is for the vast majority, that is not an attainable goal.

Most mum and dads can't finance their children's lives and can offer little to no monetary assistance to buy a home..

Want to buy a home? Have rich parents was the quote I believe

Median Weekly Earnings: For all employees, the median weekly earnings are around $1,300

$260pw to live on

Dudley
August 16, 2025

"Maggi 2 minute noodles": Spend a little extra time as a retiree to buy better for less and hunt recipes.
"watch Youtube Videos?": or wasting days and dollars travelling physically to see and learn less.

"preposterous idea of the young ones saving 80% of their wages":
"Most mum and dads can't finance their children's lives":
They already did, without financial assistance from said kids; with whose financial assistance, and small extra effort, should be able to give space, the 'Bunk of Dad&Mum', for kids to save ~90% for four years to buy a home without mort-gage and without potentially ruinous 'Bank of Mum&Dad' assistance.

"Want to buy a home? Have rich parents was the quote I believe": No, have numerate parents or train them up, would be more accurate.

"$260pw to live on": Plenty to travel to work with packed lunch and pay (numerate) parents for utilities.
Or get jobs with free board.
Alternatively, spend half life paying the rent or mort-gage.

A fully owned home, how ever so humble, is a source of great comfort; at the right time of life.

CC
August 18, 2025

The Aged Pension ?
Seriously mate......
No, just no.

Trevor
August 18, 2025

My dad owns his home and lives comfortably on the age pension.

Dudley
August 19, 2025

What rate of return required without Age Pension and without drawdown?
To 87, from 67, withdraw ($45037.2 + 5% * $418,500) / y, PesentValue -$481500 (-=in fund), FutureValue $481,500"
= RATE((87 - 67), (45037.2 + 5% * 418500), -481500, 481500)
= 13.70% / y.

Kevin
August 14, 2025

Dear John. I dont think it will happen. Our country is in debt up to our eyeballs. Have a look at the Intergenerational Report from Jim Chalmers in 2023. A sea of red every year to 2062. Most states are broke too.
Kevin .

Kerrod
August 14, 2025

John, as always, a great summation of the issues surrounding our retirement system, and I agree that the system is flawed (with many flaws) and that this should be acknowledged as well as given a substantial review and repair.

In your 2nd "Concluding Thought" you mention a "national mandatory contributory pension scheme". How would this be different to the current superannuation system which is (a) national, (b) mandatory, (c) requires contributions from members, and (d) is designed to provide a pension/retirement income post-working age?

John Abernethy
August 15, 2025

There is a significant difference because the contributions are split into:

1. A mandatory contribution to a national scheme that pays contributing retirees a non means tested pension;

2. A discretionary contribution to a retirement savings account whose size and related tax benefits are asset tested.

As I stated most retirees won’t breach a sensible asset size test in their retirement savings account. However, they have to be encouraged to accumulate supplementary retirement savings up to a reasonable level.

Kevin
August 14, 2025

John, everything is flawed if you depend on the govt and don't think for yourself. The two countries that I watch have contributory schemes, they aren't good.

The US is around 6.5% for the employee and 6.5% for the employer. The UK was 12 % for the employee and 14% ? for the employer.

Ida May Fuller is the poster girl for the failings of these systems.The U S started their system around 1936 ( the new deal ,Roosevelt? ) .She contributed a % of her wages into this new social security system. She contributed around $23 for her 3 years of contributions to qualify.She then got around $23K in pension as she lived for a long time on her monthly cheque from the govt. The pay as you go system where each generation pays for their parents

The UK started theirs in ~ 1946,same pay as you go system.Social security taxes,exactly the same failings. You need a number of years to qualify for the pension,35 in the UK. They have a low pension around 30% of average wages.Both countries complain non stop,the govt should take more money off somebody else,and give it to them.The last time I looked at the UK predictions I was astonished,a quick but of mental arithmetic and they had compounded it at just over 4% for 62 years .Started at ~£180 in 2020 and by 2082 the weekly payment would be ~ £2200 a week.The pantomime mathematician will be rushing to the scene of the emergency now.

Where do they get that £2200 a week from when the dependency ratio then may be 1 to 1 as people live longer and their health care etc costs a fortune.

Dudley
August 14, 2025

"The pantomime mathematician will be rushing to the scene of the emergency now.":

No need, calculations reasonable:
= (2200 / 180) ^ (1 / (2082 - 2020)) - 1
= 4.12% / y

Mart
August 14, 2025

John - IMHO spot on with your concluding thoughts list. I suspect the chance of that list becoming reality is akin to the middle of a doughnut .....

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

Ensure your children are insured

Are lifetime income streams the answer or just the easy way out?

How much do you need to retire comfortably?

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Which generation had it toughest?

Each generation believes its economic challenges were uniquely tough - but what does the data say? A closer look reveals a more nuanced, complex story behind the generational hardship debate. 

Maybe it’s time to consider taxing the family home

Australia could unlock smarter investment and greater equity by reforming housing tax concessions. Rethinking exemptions on the family home could benefit most Australians, especially renters and owners of modest homes.

100 Aussies: seven charts on who earns, pays, and owns

The Labor government is talking up tax reform to lift Australia’s ailing economic growth. Before any changes are made, it’s important to know who pays tax, who owns assets, and how much people have in their super for retirement.

The best way to get rich and retire early

This goes through the different options including shares, property and business ownership and declares a winner, as well as outlining the mindset needed to earn enough to never have to work again.

A perfect storm for housing affordability in Australia

Everyone has a theory as to why housing in Australia is so expensive. There are a lot of different factors at play, from skewed migration patterns to banking trends and housing's status as a national obsession.

Chinese steel - building a Sydney Harbour Bridge every 10 minutes

China's steel production, equivalent to building one Sydney Harbour Bridge every 10 minutes, has driven Australia's economic growth. With China's slowdown, what does this mean for Australia's economy and investments?

Latest Updates

Economy

Why we should follow Canada and cut migration

An explosion in low-skilled migration to Australia has depressed wages, killed productivity, and cut rental vacancy rates to near decades-lows. It’s time both sides of politics addressed the issue.

Investing

Simple maths says the AI investment boom ends badly

This AI cycle feels less like a revolution and more like a rerun. Just like fibre in 2000, shale in 2014, and cannabis in 2019, the technology or product is real but the capital cycle will be brutal. Investors beware.

Property

Australian house price speculators: What were you thinking?

Australian housing’s 50-year boom was driven by falling rates and rising borrowing power — not rent or yield. With those drivers exhausted, future returns must reconcile with economic fundamentals. Are we ready?

Shares

ASX reporting season: Room for optimism

Despite mixed ASX results, the market has shown surprising resilience. With rate cuts ahead and economic conditions improving, investors should look beyond short-term noise and position for a potential cyclical upswing.

Property

A Bunnings play without the hefty price tag

BWT Trust has moved to bring management in house. Meanwhile, many of the properties it leases to Bunnings have been repriced to materially higher rents. This has removed two of the key 'snags' holding back the stock.

Investment strategies

Replacing bank hybrids with something similar

With APRA phasing out bank hybrids from 2027, investors must reassess these complex instruments. A synthetic hybrid strategy may offer similar returns but with greater control and clearer understanding of risks.

Shares

Nvidia's CEO is selling. Here's why Aussie investors should care

The magnitude of founder Jensen Huang’s selldown may seem small, but the signal is hard to ignore. When the person with the clearest insight into the company’s future starts cashing out, it’s worth asking why.

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.