John Cameron's personal blog

One of the major messages that superfunds direct to young people is not as straight forward as it seems – and may even hurt them financially.

You see, superannuation funds often encourage young people to put extra money into superannuation, so that they can reap the long term benefits of compounding.  The logic is simple – put more money in now and there will be more there to grow and compound over the long term – possibly lots more.

The result of the funds’ projections is pure mathematics – and maths does not lie. 

Retirement: you’ve made it! And one of the rewards for all your hard work is that you can now access your superannuation. Suddenly a world of opportunities opens up – a Caribbean cruise, major home renovations or maybe helping your kids reduce some of their debt.

Of course you deserve to celebrate your retirement, but bear in mind that your super might need to support you for the next 30 years or more. Eat too far into your nest egg in the early days and you significantly reduce the time that your super will last. This is particularly the case in a low interest rate environment.

Take Ron and Val. They retire with a combined super balance of $800,000. At an interest rate of 4% pa this nest egg will fund annual living expenses of $60,000 for 19.4 years[1]. If they spend $100,000 on travel and home renovations and give a further $100,000 to their children, the reduced nest egg will now only last 13 years.

There are a number of super funds built on the concept of “life stages”.

This means that the fund is heavily invested in growth assets such as shares and property when you are in your younger age. As you get closer to retirement, the mix of investments changes, and shifts more towards low volatility and low yielding things such as cash and fixed interest funds. Hence, the fund balance changes as you go through different life stages.

- There is a superficial appeal to this approach.

Imagine the following. You know a young couple with a family, a mortgage, and all the other commitments that go with modern family life.

Then, tragically, one day one of the parents is killed.

When the survivor gets him or herself back together after a few days, the survivor contacts their insurance company, to lodge a claim, only to be told that their insurance has been cancelled because of changed government laws.

Anybody following the Hayne Royal Commission could be excused for thinking our superannuation system is broken. It is not – although parts of it need serious repair.

An excellent article in the Australian Financial Review of 18-19 August, addressed and dispelled a number of myths surrounding the superannuation system.

The author of the Chanticleer column identified the following myths:

The video Securing your Future: featuring John Cameron was in the top 10 of the most viewed videos on The West Australian website Monday (12th Sept 2016).

"Different decades, different investment returns" 

You can watch it here: Securing your Future

George Bush lost the 1992 election to Bill Clinton by focussing on the wrong thing. Bush focussed on his record, and success in Gulf War one. Clinton focussed on the economy and jobs, and won the election, thus giving rise to the saying “It’s the economy, stupid”. In other words, focus on the right thing.  Often it is right in front of you, and afterwards you can seem stupid for not spotting it.

It’s much the same when it comes to planning your financial future.

Too often we see people focussing on particular financial products as a cure to their financial ills. Often the discussion goes along the lines of, “Should we have an allocated pension?” or, “Is an annuity the answer?” or “Is superannuation worth it?” or …….

There. I’ve said it.

There are many reasons to criticise the superannuation changes announced in the budget (more on that next time), but retrospectivity is not one of them. Why? Because they are not retrospective.

Much of the considerable amount of criticism has been around the changes being “retrospective”. However, there is confusion between “retrospectivity” and “grandfathering”.