Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 110

SMSF trustees have longer lives and more certainty

One of the greatest risks facing retirees today is the uncertainty over how long they might live. How do you plan your retirement when you don’t know how long you need your savings to last? Whilst an individual’s lifespan can never be known with complete certainty, the more information retirees have on how long they are likely to live, the easier it will be to make sustainable retirement plans.

The most commonly quoted life expectancy figures are from the Australian Life Tables and are based on the whole population. If we allow for recent trends in improving mortality to continue, these tables show that 65 year-old Australian men have a life expectancy of 87 and women, a life expectancy of 89. However, different cohorts of the population will live longer than others.

Wealth and education lead to longer lives

Research from around the world has shown that wealth and higher levels of education are strongly correlated with longer life expectancy. SMSF trustees are, on average, both wealthier and better educated than the average Australian so they are one such cohort that might be expected to live longer than the average.

In the first research of its kind in Australia, Accurium’s SMSF Retirement Insights paper, SMSF Trustees - healthier, wealthier and living longer, carried out a mortality investigation on the 65,000 SMSFs in its database to test this hypothesis and calculate how much longer SMSF trustees might live. The results showed that SMSF trustees can expect to live around three years longer in retirement than average.

The table below shows the life expectancies of SMSF trustees in retirement compared to the population as a whole:

Half will live even longer

While life expectancies are helpful for retirement planning, few people will live to their exact life expectancy. Even amongst SMSF trustees, only one in six will live to within a year either side of the life expectancies shown above. Life expectancy is just an average. In fact over half of SMSF trustees will live beyond this.

Many retirees want greater certainty that their savings will last for life so it can be useful to look at the probabilities of living to older ages. Accurium’s research predicts the proportion of trustees who will survive to each age in retirement. These figures can be used as confidence levels for retirees when setting their retirement planning horizons. The table below shows the age trustees retiring at age 65 should plan for with differing levels of confidence:

For example, one in five 65 year-old women with an SMSF is expected to live to age 97, therefore those wanting 80% confidence in their retirement plans should be planning for their savings to last around 32 years. A couple wanting 90% certainty should be planning for living for a further 35 years to age 100.

The price of long lifespans is a high cost of retirement and requires trade-offs between how much an SMSF couple spend each year in retirement and how much risk they are willing to accept around outliving their capital.

‘Typical’ couples may need $1.3 million to $2.5 million

Accurium estimates that a 65 year-old couple wanting to spend $70,000 each year and willing to accept an 80% probability of a successful outcome would need $1.3 million as an SMSF starting balance; those wanting to spend $100,000 a year would need a starting balance at 65 of $2.1 million. To achieve 95% certainty that they won’t outlive their capital, that same couple would need $2.5 million if they wished to spend $100,000 per year.

Exactly how long an individual is expected to live has been found to be affected by a number of different factors as well as age and gender. Factors that are known to influence individual life expectancy include smoking, genetics (e.g. family history of certain diseases), current health problems (such as diabetes), occupation and geographic location. SMSF trustees retiring in good health are likely to fall into the higher percentiles for life expectancy and should be planning accordingly.

An important conclusion is that, while fewer SMSF trustees will pass away in the early years of their retirement compared with the population as a whole, a greater proportion will live to their mid-nineties. SMSF trustees can have greater certainty over how long they will live.

Longevity risk for a retiree isn’t the risk that they will live a long time; it is the risk that they will live longer than they have planned for. As long as trustees set their retirement plans using appropriate time horizons, this research shows that SMSF trustees really can have their cake and eat it. Not only will they live longer than the average Australian, but they actually have less longevity risk too.

 

Doug McBirnie is a Consulting Actuary at Accurium. This information is factual and is not intended to be financial product advice or legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. You should seek appropriate professional advice before making any financial decisions.

 

2 Comments
Alun Stevens
May 25, 2015

I don't believe that the paper suffers from the fallacy of misinterpreting correlation for causality. It is simply comparing outcomes for SMSF trustees with those of the general public.

The causality is undoubtedly the beneficial outcomes from the socio-economic standing of the average SMSF trustee when compared to the total population. The results are entirely consistent with many studies over many years that have considered the mortality experience of different socio-economic cohorts. Even with those studies, however, it is worth remembering that it is not the money that causes the better outcomes - although it helps.

The GPs, however, might have been misled by the statistical inference. They pretty much all have SMSFs.

SMSF Trustee
May 24, 2015

I'm so relieved to realise that my decision to start an SMSF and become a trustee a couple of years ago has added to my life expectancy.

I think, actually, that this study suffers from one of the fallacies I learnt about in high school commerce: arguing that because B follows A, then B must have been caused by A. It's just as likely that both A and B were caused by X, Y and Z.

Perhaps it's got nothing to do with being an SMSF trustee and is really just saying that wealthy, well educated people live longer than poor people with less education. The fact that this cohort also happens to tend to start SMSF's rather than just relying on an off the shelf product is most likely to be coincidental with their extra life expectancy.

But I'm open to being shown otherwise. If I'm wrong, then every GP in the country should immediately prescribe 'open an SMSF' to all their patients.

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

Longevity awareness and the three pillars

How not to run out of money in retirement

How long will you live?

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.