AJ Radio – Episode 19 (Recorded 24th July 2018)

In this 19th Episode of AJ Radio we crack open a segment of the investment market that was once thought perhaps to be a trivial area. Now, with a projected 2.3 billion people participating in this area of the market and a forecasted spend of $137.9 billion in 2018, this area of the market is no longer a niche player.  This episode takes a closer look at what is transpiring in this exciting video game market and the opportunities it presents for investors.

Is it better to retire on a $350k super fund, or a $900k super fund balance?

When it comes to retirement most people believe more is best, but is this always the case? Have the Centrelink changes that came into effect last year distorted reality; has the $350k super fund become the new $900k – without all the extra effort of squirrelling away so much for retirement?

Let’s assume we know two couples who are about to retire. One couple has a balance of $350k; the other has $900k. Both couples want a modest living standard in retirement, with an income stream of around $50k p.a.

The first couple with a combined balance of $350k can expect to receive an income stream of around $21,000 p.a. Potentially, they might also receive the Age Pension if their combined assets – excluding their home – sits under the threshold of $380,500. The projected Age Pension is likely to pay them a combined income of $35,573. Thus, they will end up with a total combined income of $56,573. It is likely that at a 6% drawdown rate, their superannuation will not be eroded too fast, so it should be possible for them to keep pace with inflation during their remaining lifetime.

In addition to receiving the Aged Pension, this couple will also receive all the benefits and concessions that normally come with it, such as discounts on utilities, medicines, etc.

The second couple has a combined super balance of $900k. Like the first couple, they own their own home. But as their combined asset balance exceeds the maximum Centrelink threshold of $837,000, they are not eligible for the Age Pension.

This couple will commence an income stream from their superannuation balance and, assuming a similar 6% drawdown limit, they will be eligible to draw a combined retirement income of $54,000 p.a. If their super fund’s performance remains reasonable, this should also last them until life expectancy and keep pace with inflation.

However, being over the Centrelink threshold means that this couple is not eligible for any of the discounts and benefits that normally accompany the Age Pension, although they will also not be affected by any government changes that might occur in the future to Centrelink thresholds.

They could also draw down a higher income stream earlier in their retirement, to enjoy travel and entertainment, etc. Then as they age their need for cashflow might not be as great, so they can gradually ‘ease off the throttle’ and reduce their balance to the $350k mark, and be in a similar situation to the first couple.

So the next time you are feeling a little underwhelmed about your retirement picture, it’s important to give consideration to all options that might be available to you. Sometimes, bigger may not be better. Or, you might be better off sitting at the $900k balance, possibly spending the difference on home improvements, travel, a new car etc. Later you could drop to the Age Pension limit, and even if you receive just $1 from the Age Pension, it still means you qualify to enjoy the other benefits that come with this government offering.

Before delving into a retirement strategy, it’s important you take your personal situation into account and seek advice from a qualified financial planning professional. Of course, we recommend AJ Financial Planning.

AJ Radio – Episode ​15 (Recorded 17th October 2017)

In this 15th Episode of AJ Radio we discuss retirement. Specifically, we explore what you should do if you don’t have enough money for retirement, and what are the steps you could consider taking to handle this situation. We also give a quick update on the speculative and very interesting cryptocurrency market.

 
 

Are industry super funds headed for an asset allocation disaster?

Superannuation funds within the retail and industry super fund market usually offer ‘balanced’ or ‘growth’-based investment options. But what does this really mean; and aren’t these funds all the same?

On 31 May 2017, Vanguard’s Balanced Index Fund reported an allocation to growth-based assets of 49.9%.

Over the years, my interpretation of a balanced profile for an investor has been fairly similar to Vanguard’s 50/50 position; that is, one’s holdings are fairly equally split between growth-based assets and defensive assets. The question is, are industry super funds applying the same principle or, more importantly, are they headed towards an asset allocation disaster?

Recently I reviewed Catholic Super’s asset allocation, and I discovered something interesting. Delving into the target’s asset allocation for a ‘balanced’ fund I noticed a 70% growth-based assets allocation. This is a massive divergence from Vanguard’s recommendation, not to mention any number of portfolio theory textbooks. It made me wonder, has Catholic Super’s marketing department ‘mislabeled’ this investment option?

When reviewing Catholic Super’s strategic asset allocation, I also noticed that growth-based exposure was sitting at around 74%, if you included the ‘defensive alternatives’. If these alternatives are removed, it pushes the exposure up to 81%, as it is unclear exactly what these might entail.

Australian Super’s ‘balanced’ option appears to be in similar territory. When I looked at the mix of assets, if credit, fixed interest and cash are included as defensive assets, then growth-based exposure sits at 73%.

Neither Catholic Super nor Australian Super provide a date reference for these asset allocations on their respective website, so these percentages may have changed since they were originally published. It’s reasonable to assume, however, that both Australian Super and Catholic Super are taking a tactical asset allocation position – but have they reasonably exceeded these boundaries?

For years now, industry super funds have been reporting strong returns above those of their peers. The question must be raised, therefore, have these funds’ marketing divisions been pushing up returns by ‘mislabeling’ investment categories in order to attract new investors? Of greater concern, though, is whether these funds are potentially exposing investors to far more risk than the labels may imply?

So, let’s go back to the Vanguard Growth Index Fund reported on 31 May 2017. The index presently sits with a maximum range of exposure for growth-based assets at 72%.

You might ask, does having a larger exposure to growth-based assets matter? Doesn’t it mean higher returns for the members of the super fund and everybody is happy?

The short answer is: volatility and market downside. These factors make it very difficult for an investor whose risk profile is balanced to ensure they are matched carefully with the right exposure for their risk tolerance.

So, who has got it right? Vanguard, or the industry super funds? Which asset allocation really is ‘balanced’?

As Warren Buffett famously said, ‘Only when the tide goes out do you discover who’s been swimming naked.’

AJ Radio – Special Edition on Insights from CFA Institute New York

In this special edition of AJ Radio we reveal what the founder of AJ Financial Planning, Alex Jamieson, recently learnt from attending the CFA Institute Conference held in New York. Hear his insights on which sectors of the share market will be benefit from the election of Donald Trump.