Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 208

The 3 key principles of retirement income

The ways financial regulation and industry evolve to serve the growing number of Australians facing retirement have huge social and economic implications. They make the Government’s consultation paper, “Development of the Framework for Comprehensive Income Products for Retirement” (CIPR) (the Paper), an incredibly important step. We applaud the Paper and the opportunity it provides Australia to have the retirement income discussion. It is this sort of process that has created a system the envy of many countries and I am certain that elements of whatever comes out of this process will also be world-leading and have an impact far beyond our shores.

With all that said, I admit to being annoyed when I started reading the Paper because of the overly negative way account-based pensions were portrayed and what felt like rose-coloured glasses being applied to longevity insurance. Although a lot of relevant detail and context comes out later in the document, I believe the narrative and industry debate has been too heavily skewed towards product-based solutions. There is a lot more groundwork that can be laid to improve retirement outcomes before jumping straight to a product.

I do not profess to have the final solution, but there are three broad principles that need to be embraced as part of this process: mechanics, technology and preferences.

Mechanics

As a research house, we are constantly trying to cut through the noise and marketing to understand what really makes an investment tick. When it comes to retirement incomes, the amount available is determined by four main areas: contributions + investment earnings – fees – taxes (the traditional components of defined contribution or account-based solutions). Adding longevity insurance of some form adds a fifth element, mortality credits.

We believe that the CIPR should be defined as a solution that utilises relevant account based and longevity insurance component products as opposed to a composite product. We support the move to make longevity insurance more readily available. However, it is already a complicated product, and adding to this by incorporating additional elements or features will make it more difficult to compare these products and may prevent the formation of a competitive market. Importantly, while the components of a CIPR may be kept separate, the resultant payout profiles can still be communicated as a combined income stream to members.

The idea that CIPRs will lead to higher levels of retirement income for all Australians, an idea promulgated several times in the Paper, oversimplifies the situation and has the potential to be misinterpreted out of context. Very simply, longevity insurance transfers assets between those who die early to those who die later. This will clearly benefit some and has the potential to add certainty to many more. However, the mortality credits created have some implications relative to a simple account-based pension, including:

  • product cost structures will be higher due to the additional complexity
  • the capital costs associated with longevity products
  • assets are likely to be allocated to lower risk and return investments due to the capital requirements placed on annuity providers, and
  • higher distribution or sales costs due to the additional complexity of the product.

It’s true in a narrow sense that products such as annuities can create additional income for retirees as long as they live, but this does not always equate to more utility for the retiree. Further, for retirees who wish to draw down a low percentage of their assets, have other sources of income, or are not concerned about longevity risk, a similar improvement could also be achieved through asset-based pensions with the assistance of better advice tools.

Technology

Advances in technology will see ongoing improvements in the way retirement incomes can be built for Australians. Technology has a key role to play in better forms of communication, more efficient administration platforms, increasingly sophisticated modelling engines and data-gathering techniques. Technology and advice should be the instruments used to pull together different product components into an overall retirement income solution for retirees.

Technology will bring down the cost of providing retirement incomes to more Australians. Technology means that it will become less important to productise solutions to make them commercially viable. These factors must be recognised in the formation of the CIPR framework. The CIPR framework must make it easier for trustees to provide online advice to address individual requirements in retirement. If safe harbour provisions are being considered for a product, they should also exist for expanded intra-fund advice.

Preferences

The CIPR framework was originally envisioned for members who do not make a choice on retirement – defaulting members. However, even a defaulting member will have preferences. My US colleagues have published research around optimal levels of annuitisation. Two of the biggest drivers are bequest preferences and the desire for certainty in retirement incomes.

From a policy perspective, superannuation is not intended to be used as an estate planning tool. This policy objective is managed through minimum drawdown requirements and the tax treatment of superannuation and pension assets. However, it is incorrect to extrapolate this to a position where no superannuation assets should be left to dependants in any instance. Within these policy settings, some Australians will prefer to live more frugally so that their dependants may live better, while others may prefer more certainty around retirement incomes. People will have different preferences.

The fear of running out of money can be a factor in lowering drawdown rates. In some cases, this can be a justified fear. In other cases, it is more of a behavioural bias. In both instances, the result can be better informed through the utilisation of improved advice tools. If no advice is provided, it is not surprising that members gravitate towards the published minimum drawdown rates. While much progress has been made, I doubt there is anybody who would say the industry has nailed the way in which we help retirees to manage their account-based pensions in retirement.

Using an annuity as part of a default would make more sense if the recommendation could be personalised. Given basic demographic information on each participant, such as age, compensation, savings rate, and balance, coupled with plan-level data on any type of additional pension benefits, would better enable the annuity recommendation to be tailored to that participant. Even if a member hasn’t communicated preferences, the ability to customise the portfolio based on available data is there today and will continue to grow. The cohort-based approach suggested by the Paper may be a good initial step on the road toward individual solutions.

Product options must include advice

In summary, a composite approach to CIPR that pairs digital advice – a low cost, individualised component driven by data and technology – with a mix of transparent ‘best of breed’ product options is the best path toward improving retirement outcomes for Australians. The CIPR framework needs to acknowledge likely future digital capabilities and not just the tools at hand today, and to review the regulations governing the ability of trustees to provide individual recommendations.

 

Anthony Serhan, CFA, is Morningstar’s Managing Director Research Strategy, Asia-Pacific. Morningstar has made a submission to Treasury on the Paper. This material has been prepared for general use only, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. You should seek your own advice.

 

RELATED ARTICLES

Schemes designed to deal with longevity risk

Overcoming loss aversion in retirement income

Leading superannuation members to the Promised Land

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

House prices surge but falls are common and coming

We tend to forget that house prices often fall. Direct lending controls are more effective than rate rises because macroprudential limits affect the volume of money for housing leaving business rates untouched.

Survey responses on pension eligibility for wealthy homeowners

The survey drew a fantastic 2,000 responses with over 1,000 comments and polar opposite views on what is good policy. Do most people believe the home should be in the age pension asset test, and what do they say?

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

Any policy decision needs to recognise who is affected by a change. It pays to check the data on who pays taxes, who owns assets and who earns the income to ensure an equitable and efficient outcome.

Three good comments from the pension asset test article

With articles on the pensions assets test read about 40,000 times, 3,500 survey responses and thousands of comments, there was a lot of great reader participation. A few comments added extra insights.

The sorry saga of housing affordability and ownership

It is hard to think of any area of widespread public concern where the same policies have been pursued for so long, in the face of such incontrovertible evidence that they have failed to achieve their objectives.

Latest Updates

Strategy

$1 billion and counting: how consultants maximise fees

Despite cutbacks in public service staff, we are spending over a billion dollars a year with five consulting firms. There is little public scrutiny on the value for money. How do consultants decide what to charge?

Investment strategies

Two strong themes and companies that will benefit

There are reasons to believe inflation will stay under control, and although we may see a slowing in the global economy, two companies should benefit from the themes of 'Stable Compounders' and 'Structural Winners'.

Financial planning

Reducing the $5,300 upfront cost of financial advice

Many financial advisers have left the industry because it costs more to produce advice than is charged as an up-front fee. Advisers are valued by those who use them while the unadvised don’t see the need to pay.

Strategy

Many people misunderstand what life expectancy means

Life expectancy numbers are often interpreted as the likely maximum age of a person but that is incorrect. Here are three reasons why the odds are in favor of people outliving life expectancy estimates.

Investment strategies

Slowing global trade not the threat investors fear

Investors ask whether global supply chains were stretched too far and too complex, and following COVID, is globalisation dead? New research suggests the impact on investment returns will not be as great as feared.

Investment strategies

Wealth doesn’t equal wisdom for 'sophisticated' investors

'Sophisticated' investors can be offered securities without the usual disclosure requirements given to everyday investors, but far more people now qualify than was ever intended. Many are far from sophisticated.

Investment strategies

Is the golden era for active fund managers ending?

Most active fund managers are the beneficiaries of a confluence of favourable events. As future strong returns look challenging, passive is rising and new investors do their own thing, a golden age may be closing.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2021 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. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). 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.

Website Development by Master Publisher.