Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 320

Off target: Mercer misses the mark on our retirement modelling

Grattan research has shown that the conventional wisdom that most Australians don’t save enough for retirement is wrong. The vast majority of retirees today and in future are likely to be financially comfortable. Our research seems to have come as a surprise to many retirement income researchers.

In a recent report, superannuation firm Mercer claimed Grattan’s retirement incomes research was ‘very misleading’ and was based on assumptions that were ‘not realistic’ for the average Australian. This Grattan policy paper shows that the Mercer critique of our work misses the mark.

A clarification on our approach

Some of Mercer’s claims result from an unfortunate misreading of our approach. Mercer mistakenly concludes that we model a decline in working-age incomes in the lead-up to retirement, when in fact incomes in our modelling peak just before retirement.

Mercer argues that retirement incomes should be assessed against the peak in earnings from ages 40 to 55, indexed forward by wages to age 67. But such a benchmark is 15% higher than Australians ever earn while working. It also ignores the fact that most Australians aged 40-55 are still incurring the costs of raising dependent children, whereas in retirement they are not. Spending by Australian households falls by about 15% between ages 45-49 and 60-64. Mercer’s work falls into the same trap as much Australian research on retirement incomes: it makes assumptions about what retirees need without looking closely at what they spend, or what they earn while working.

And Mercer’s preoccupation with ensuring all retirees, and especially wealthier retirees, are as well off in retirement as beforehand is a recipe for higher inheritances. Its approach would force low- and middle-income Australians to over-save for their retirement. Policy makers can justify lowering someone’s living standards during their working life only if they’re protecting them from even worse outcomes in retirement.

The real life experience

In contrast, our modelling is consistent with the lived experience of retirees today. Our 2018 Money in retirement report showed that most retirees today have a similar or higher living standard as they had while working. Most retirees today feel more comfortable financially than younger Australians who are still working. And retirees are less likely than working-age Australians to suffer financial stress such as not being able to pay a bill on time.

Retirement incomes policy needs to balance the trade-off between higher living standards when retired against lower living standards when working. And retirement modelling should reflect the reality of Australians’ spending needs, in retirement and beforehand. Unfortunately, Mercer’s critique of Grattan’s retirement research does neither.

 

Brendan Coates is a Fellow at Grattan Institute. This article is general information and not personal advice.

 

  •   20 August 2019
  •      
  •   

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

Retirement spending is not one-size-fits-all

We tend to spend less in retirement …

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Why spending more in early retirement can improve lifetime income

Conventional wisdom encourages retirees to preserve superannuation. But if those likely to qualify for the Age Pension later in life spend a little more today, it may deliver higher lifetime income and a more stable retirement.

Is it time to bail on Australian stocks?

For generations, Australian investors have backed banks, miners and dividends. But has that loyalty come at a cost? A look at the numbers raises an uncomfortable question about where future returns will come from.

Testamentary trusts survived the trust tax. The drafting battle has just begun.

The fight over testamentary trusts looked settled. Then the draft legislation arrived. Hidden in a technical detail is a question that could force many families to rethink wills they thought were already future-proof.

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.

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.

The new capital gains tax trap for your portfolio

Investors have long accepted one portfolio rule without much question. A major tax shift could change that calculation entirely, forcing difficult trade-offs between risk, discipline and an overlooked cost lurking beneath.

Latest Updates

Exchange traded products

It’s time for LICs to die

A high-profile dividend cut and a prominent fund manager’s apology have reignited a long-running debate. If investors can access similar exposures more cheaply and efficiently elsewhere, what exactly is keeping LICs alive?

Taxation

Will investors be better or worse off under new housing tax changes?

Housing tax reforms have sparked warnings of market turmoil and promises of greater fairness. But after modelling nearly two decades of property data, the results suggest winners and losers may not be who many investors expect.

Retirement

Three considerations before reshaping your legacy plan

Many retirees hope to leave a legacy. Proposed trust tax reforms could force families to rethink. The question is not how much to leave behind, but whether today's inheritance plans will still make sense as circumstances change.

Investment strategies

Why experienced investors still get markets wrong

Retirement is approaching. Markets are noisy. And every headline seems to demand action. The biggest investment risk isn't fear, greed or market volatility, it often arrives disguised as research and sensible risk management.

Shares

Why pay more for less?

Conditions were stacked in favour of professional investors in 2026. Most still fell short, raising questions about where investors should look for value. Meanwhile, an alternative strategy continued to make its case.

Investment strategies

Bleeding air out of the bubble

Equity valuations have fallen sharply over the past year, yet investors have largely been spared the volatility and losses that typically accompany a de-rating. What explains this unusually orderly reset? Here are five key drivers.

Strategy

Has AI gone rogue?

We worry about AI becoming conscious. But what if consciousness isn't the issue? The more unsettling possibility is a machine capable of pursuing objectives relentlessly, without motives, emotions, or awareness of any kind.

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.