Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 6

Is a ‘transition to retirement’ pension worthwhile?

In an earlier Cuffelinks article (Edition 2: The superannuation essentials), I covered the basic concepts of superannuation and its tax advantages. One of the breakthrough government initiatives was to allow people to access super whilst still working. This has created three broad financial planning strategies:

  • work less hours, and top up your lost income by drawing down from a pre-retirement pension
  • continue working full-time, but restructure your salary and super to give the optimum split that maintains your after tax income whilst tax effectively boosting your retirement savings
  • keep working full-time, maximise your salary sacrifice and convert the bulk of your super to the pension phase to avoid paying tax on performance returns.

The attraction of the pension strategies depends on the amount you have in super and your PAYG marginal tax rate, and crucially, whether you have reached your preservation age. For people born before 1 July 1960 the preservation age is 55. People born after 1 July 1964 have to wait until age 60. There is a sliding scale preservation age for people born between those two dates - either 56, 57, 58 or 59. This is one of the many complexities caused by ‘grandfathering’ where governments try not to disadvantage existing superannuants.

Strategy number one is what the government envisioned when they allowed people to access their super whilst still working. The other two were created by the financial planning and wealth management industry which spotted an opportunity to save their clients tax.

There are a number of iterations of the transition to retirement strategy. In its purest form it comprises three steps:

  • converting most of your super to the pension phase
  • increasing the amount you salary sacrifice
  • drawing down a monthly payment from your pension.

In this way you are creating sufficient after-tax income, but because of the preferential tax rates in super and pension, you are better off from a tax perspective.

I say ‘most of your super’ because having set up a pension you can’t add your future super contributions to it. Consequently, you have to leave a small amount in your super account.

The transition to retirement initiative has opened the door for many people who are still working full-time. Some people do not need to maintain their income as they have sufficient to cover living expenses and emergencies. They are already maximising their salary sacrifice contributions, and are looking for ways to save more tax. For these people, the potential benefit of a pre-retirement pension has nothing to do with maintaining income. The attraction is that superannuation assets in a pension pay no tax on performance returns, whereas in accumulation the tax can be up to 15%.

Furthermore, although it’s paying no tax, a pension fund can still claim back its franking credits. For example, if the fund receives a dividend of $700 from an Australian company with a franking credit of $300, it will pay no tax on the $700 dividend but receive a tax refund for the $300 franking credit, giving a total cash return of $1,000.

So should everyone be converting their super to a pension once they reach their preservation age? Well, in at least two circumstances, the benefits significantly outweigh the disadvantages:

  • you are aged 60+
  • you are exclusively using non concessional contributions to start the pension.

In both these instances there’s no tax on pension payments or the performance returns in the pension. The only downside is that legislation decrees that you have to withdraw between 3% and 10% of the pension balance each year, so you are lowering your eventual retirement nest egg. But this is not a major problem as you can simply put it back into super tax free (provided you do not exceed your $450,000 non concessional limit over three years). The minimum pension payment rises to 4% next year so you need to take that into consideration.

If you are between 55 and 59 it all depends on a complex set of variables – your super balance, the split between tax free and taxable component, performance returns, the split between income and capital growth, the amount of share transactions, the pension payment amount and your marginal tax rate.

Let’s say you have $300,000 in super, totally invested in cash deposits that deliver 4.5% interest and your marginal tax rate is 38.5% including Medicare. The contributions in the fund comprise 100% employer and salary sacrificed contributions (to use the industry jargon, it is 100% taxable component). If you leave it in super, the interest earned is $13,500 which is taxed at 15% ($2,025).

If you convert the super to the pension phase, you will have to withdraw 4% in the 2014 tax year ($12,000). As the money is 100% taxable component you will pay 23.5% tax on the pension (38.5% less 15% tax rebate) which is $2,820. So in this example you are $795 worse off by converting to a pension, and you’ve taken $12,000 out of a concessionally taxed environment.

Once you start increasing the return, the position starts to favour the pension option, but there may be a joker in the pack if your super fund invests in a managed fund with active share trading. It is common for a fund manager to sell half the companies in the portfolio over the course of a financial year. This often creates realised capital gains that are taxed at 10% in the accumulation phase, but not in the pension phase. This activity could well swing the decision, but it’s very difficult to assess.

The variable that really changes the ball game is the split between taxable component and tax free component. The tax free component comprises the after tax contributions you have made to super. Let's say the split between taxable and tax free component is 50/50. Keeping the other assumptions constant, there’s still not much saving with $300,000 invested in cash deposits with a 4.5% return. But if you either increase the balance or the return, the picture changes significantly. With a balance of $300,000 and a return of 7%, you are $1,740 a year better off converting your super to a pension. With a balance of $1 million and a return of 4.5%, you are $1,950 better off.

Can’t be bothered with the hassle? Well, a 55-year-old couple with $1 million each in super which delivers an average return of 8% per annum could pay an unnecessary $73,000 more in tax over the five year period by waiting till they reach 60 to convert their super to a pension.

So my advice is to get out the calculator, or better still, consult a financial adviser who has access to modelling software. You may get an early Christmas present from the Tax Office.

 

  •   12 March 2013
  • 3
  •      
  •   

RELATED ARTICLES

Retirement spending is not one-size-fits-all

When losses in super become irreplaceable

Sequencing risk resurfaces for retirees

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Are you making these SMSF mistakes?

After four decades advising investors, there are a few common mistakes I've seen SMSF investors make. From holding too much cash and chasing yield to overtrading and trusting tips. Are these errors costing you?

Why have Australian living standards 'fallen' and how do we fix it?

For the last few years there has been much talk of a 'cost-of-living' crisis in Australia and of 'falling living standards'. Lately this has flared up again with the pickup in inflation resulting in a renewed fall in real wages.

Will you run out of money in retirement?

Fear of running out has become a defining retirement anxiety. Why do some retirees die with substantial wealth while others deplete their nest egg? Evidence suggests the answer is more complicated than we think. 

Retirement spending is not one-size-fits-all

New data challenges the idea that Australians are underspending their super. The bigger issue may be helping retirees navigate complexity, make confident decisions and use their savings to support security, wellbeing and choice.

Four options for an income investor’s next dollar

What if Australia’s golden age of dividends is ending? Rather than overhaul your portfolio, it may be worth considering where new capital can work harder. I discuss four income strategies and the trade-offs behind each.

The missing link in the CGT debate

A little-noticed consequence of Labor’s tax changes could have implications well beyond investors’ tax bills. The issue raises bigger questions about incentives, capital allocation and the drivers of long-term economic growth.

Latest Updates

SMSF strategies

Meg on SMSFs: What do we think about reversionary pensions these days?

Reversionary pensions have long been a staple of SMSF estate planning, but are they still the best option? Meg Heffron revisits a once-clear favourite and asks whether changing super rules have shifted the balance.

The ageing ‘crisis’ has not and will not happen

Rising age dependency is frequently treated as a warning sign for economies. But when actual workforce participation is examined, a strikingly different picture emerges about ageing, productivity and economic sustainability.

Retirement

How does the 4% rule stack up?

The 4% rule has long been retirement's gold standard. But after a difficult period for investors, fresh analysis suggests a more conservative approach may significantly improve the chances of making savings last.

Shares

Four charts that expose market concentration risk

Investors have recently been rewarded for backing market leaders, but history suggests this eventually comes at a cost. Now may be the time to review whether your portfolio is carrying unintended risks beneath the surface.

Investment strategies

The case for gearing beyond property

Most Australians gear into property but ignore shares. That may be a mistake. Used carefully, geared equity strategies can enhance long-term returns, reduce cash tied up in growth assets and support retirement income goals.

Economy

Australia's $1 trillion debt pile

The headlines exclaiming that Australian government debt has hit A$1 trillion and US government debt has hit $40 trillion has turned heads, but how serious are they really? Will Australia's mix of debt create challenges?

Economy

Has 100 years of growth made us any happier?

For decades, GDP has been the benchmark for economic success, but has it made us materially happier? If happiness does not rise in lockstep with prosperity, are we overlooking what constitutes a successful society?

Sponsors

Alliances

  • ASA-Logo-RGB-ActiveGreen-web.png

© 2026 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.