Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 156

SMSF assets will not need segregating

The Turnbull Government’s first Budget has aimed its sights squarely at the superannuation accounts of wealthier Australians, but SMSFs may be well-placed to take advantage of the proposed changes. Retirees have the ability to plan and manage their tax settings in a single vehicle.

How much income does it provide?

Changes proposed to take effect from 1 July 2017 limit the amount that can be held in the tax-free pension phase to $1.6 million. Analysis of Accurium’s database of SMSF trustees preparing for retirement suggests this will impact around a fifth of trustees over 65.

This begs the question of what level of spending in retirement is sustainable for someone with $1.6 million in savings. Around a quarter of SMSF trustees using our services have indicated a desired annual budget in retirement of over $100,000.

Our research shows that superannuation savings of $1.6 million would be sufficient to give a 65-year-old male 55% confidence of spending $100,000 p.a. without outliving his savings. This assumes an asset allocation in line with the average SMSF and average Australian life expectancies. Due to their longer life expectancy, for 65-year-old females, the confidence level drops to 47%. These calculations allow for tax and age pension entitlements.

Many retirees will think a one in two chance of outliving their savings and falling back on the age pension is too great a risk. Retirees looking for greater confidence, say reducing that risk to only a one in 20 chance, would need an annual spending level of only $65,000.

^ Using methodology in Accurium’s SMSF Retirement Insights Volume 3 – Bridging the prosperity gap.

Transfer cap is not a limit on superannuation or saving

On a practical note, the $1.6 million cap on the amount that can be used to commence a pension does not restrict the amount retirees can hold in superannuation. It is just a limit on assets that will preserve a tax-free status. The excess can continue to be held in an accumulation account with earnings taxed at a concessional rate of 15%. For most people this remains an effective and relatively simple tax-efficient structure.

Some commentators have raised concerns about the complexities such as capital gains tax impacts of complying with the cap, particularly for those already in pension phase. However, this is where the flexibility of an SMSF means there is no need to sell or transfer particular assets in order to comply with the new limit. A member of an SMSF can have both accumulation and pension accounts supported by the same unsegregated pool of assets.

SMSF trustees moving into pension phase will need to commence a pension with an amount within the cap, leaving the rest in accumulation. There is no need to identify which of the SMSF’s assets are supporting the pension. For those already in pension phase, excess amounts can be rolled back to accumulation without the assets needing to be sold or allocated specifically, provided they are accounted for appropriately. In order to continue to receive tax-fee earnings, the SMSF will need an actuarial certificate providing the split of the SMSF’s income between tax-free and taxed at 15%.

This will provide flexibility in terms of withdrawals. Retirees who have balances in excess of the cap may want to keep additional withdrawals from the pension account to a minimum. They can continue to draw on their accumulation assets in the form of lump sums if additional cashflow (above the minimum) is needed.

While the introduction of this cap will potentially limit the tax concessions, a retiree with $2 million in superannuation is likely to pay around $3,000 a year more in tax, although they will still be able to use the franking credits from the whole portfolio.

The added complexity of the proposed changes will make retirement planning more difficult, although SMSF flexibility should continue to make them a popular option. Advisers and accountants will have many opportunities to help their clients, and asset ‘location’ may become almost as important as asset allocation for many SMSF trustees and advisers alike.

 

Doug McBirnie and is a Senior Actuary at Accurium. This is general information only and is not intended to be financial product advice. It is based on Accurium’s understanding of the 2016-17 Federal Budget Report and current taxation laws. No warranty is given on the information provided and Accurium is not liable for any loss arising from the use of this information.

 

  •   19 May 2016
  • 9
  •      
  •   
9 Comments
Ashley Owen
May 19, 2016

Assumes ‘savings’ for retirement (ie the proposed cap of $1.6m) is SMSF assets and nothing else. Most of the wealth in Australia is and always has been outside SMSFs and outside super in general.

Also, I assume the confidence/probability bands apply to the investment returns and not to the longevity as well – ie when it says 55% probability of $100k withdrawals (indexed I presume) from a $1.6m fund will outlast a 65 year old – this assumes he only lives to his median life expectancy. It probably only refers to the variations in possible investment returns. But there is also a 50% chance of outliving his median life expectancy, So if you add that additional 50% likelihood of failure you get a low probability the fund will outlive his actual life.

Doug McBirnie
May 20, 2016

Hi Ashley

You raise a very good point about how longevity risk is allowed for in retirement projections. Most models we have seen in the market assume a fixed lifespan with no allowance for the (very high) probability that the retiree will live longer (or shorter) than this.

Accurium's models retirees' lifespans stochastically to allow for this risk. That is, the confidence levels quoted include the probabilities that retirees will live to a whole range of ages.

The link to our recent research paper explains the modelling in more detail if you are interested.

Regards

Doug

Peter
May 19, 2016

For married couples with a joint SMSF the $1.6m cap becomes $3.2m assuming that it is possible to transfer between the 2 accounts if 1 is greater than the other. If this is the case then what is the problem? At 5% return an annual tax free income of $160,000 should surely be enough for anyone in the pension mode.

John
May 19, 2016

Peter, for a couple you can also add another $800,000 invested outside super at 5% returning $20,000pa each, and so within the tax-free threshold.

In effect, it's $4m per couple giving $200,000pa tax free - more than enough to get by on.

SMSF Trustee
May 19, 2016

But what if one of the married couple is up to $1 million but has used up the non-concessional limit of $500k already? You can't just transfer another $600k because that person is in the same SMSF as his/her spouse. The limits are individual based, not fund based.

Alan
May 19, 2016

As SMSF Tee says this is the problem most women with broken work have not been able to accumulate deducted + earnings of the $1.1m which together with the $500k would give you the $1.6M .

Ramani
May 19, 2016

Doug deserves thanks for clearing up the many self-inflicted confusions about super after the $1.6 million tax-exempt pensions cap. Hybrid funds with both accumulation and pension phases for members have been around, with segregated or unsegregated assets, the latter requiring annual actuarial certification. This would not change under the budget.

A legal way to achieve 100% tax exemption in hybrid funds (subject to complying with the fund rules as well as the flagged $1.6 million and life-time $0.5 million NCC caps) is to commute pensions and recommence on the day a contribution is received. Alternatively, multiple income streams may be run with each contribution. In either case, accumulation balances would be zero throughout the year everything being on pensions account, and 100% of earnings would be exempt. No actuarial certificate required.

Phred
May 22, 2016

This seems to be in conflict with the comments of Kelly O'Dwyer who stated that the $1.6 would not be capped after the pension has started .

also why is an actuarial certificate needed for what is a simple apportionment calculation

Ramani
May 23, 2016

Phil, The rationale for actuarial certification derives from the complexity of asset, liability, income, expenses, provisions actual and probabilistic which may change throughout and impact each other. The aim is to sort out, by proxy if you like assets supporting pension liabilities on a weighted average basis.
If you query this, you might as well question why independent accountants must sign off accounts annually at a substantial cost. This monopoly could be outsourced to actuaries, CFAs or MBAs.
Won't happen.

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

Meg on the Federal Budget: what's changed with super?

The impact of our marriage breakdown on our SMSF

Franking credits lament: was it worth it?

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. 

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.

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.

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.