Murray Report on the Australian Financial System and Superannuation

The findings of the Murray review of the Australian financial system have been released. I am most interested in their recommendations for superannuation (retirement accounts). Of course, there is no way to know yet what recommendations the government (or future governments) will take on board. This just adds to the uncertainty surrounding super. I had been thinking that now I am 50 years old, as soon as we buy a house I would start making after tax ("nonconcessionary") contributions to super. This is because once you retire there is no tax on superannuation earnings and it is only 10 years till I am 60 and could withdraw money. Though pre-tax contributions ("concessionary" - actually they are taxed at 15% instead of your marginal rate) are limited to $35k per year, you can contribute up to $150k per year after tax. But if they actually withdraw the advantageous tax status of super and worse still if they end up forcing people to take an annuity instead of being able to access their money as they like then I wouldn't want to put any extra money in super at all. The review recommends making annuities a default option, which people will have to opt out of, but I can imagine it becoming compulsory. So, for now, even when we have bought a house I wouldn't plan on adding any extra non-concessionary contributions to super. And yes I sold Qantas too soon :(

Second Investment in Managed Futures

I have long seen the advantages of managed futures funds. The best of managed futures funds companies seems to be Winton. I previously made an investment with Man-AHL. The fund hasn't made much money for us, but did much better in the financial crisis than most of my other investments. We have 0.80% of net worth invested in the fund. We also have some investment in commodities via GTAA. Another fund that hasn't done much of anything so far. Now I have made an initial investment in a Winton fund offering. The investment is 4.6% of net worth. This takes exposure to commodities out of net worth to 6.0% and out of gross assets 4.5%. The main downside to this fund is that in Australia it doesn't have any tax advantages compared to stocks, which have strong advantages. This means that this will likely remain a small diversifying investment until maybe one day I set up a self-managed super fund, which is a tax advantaged structure itself.

How does this fit into our overall investment strategy? Basically we have a 60/40 portfolio with 60% in stocks and 40% in other investments. Within the stocks 2/3 are planned to be Australian stocks and 1/3 foreign. Within those categories we also allocate to large and small cap Australian and to US and non-US stocks in proportion to their market capitalizations. In the 40% other we have allocations to: bonds, real estate, hedge funds, commodities, private equity, cash, and other. The whole portfolio is then levered to provide about a beta of 1 to the stock market and rebalanced on an ongoing basis. The leverage of a diversified portfolio is an idea from the risk parity approach. 60/40 is simply the traditional stock-bond ratio used for diversified portfolios, and we weight heavily to Australian stocks for tax reasons. Several of the supposedly non-stock investments are in fact Australian listed stocks that are listed investment companies pursuing alternative investment strategies. A lot of the leverage is obtained by investing in leveraged (geared) managed stock funds rather than using margin loans ourselves. We keep the actual margin loan quite small most of the time. This is because the interest rate we can get is much worse than what the funds can get. Interactive Brokers has much better interest rates, but they aren't giving loans to Australian investors at the moment. All this seems to me a reasonable strategy for a non-high net worth investor based in Australia.

Excess Superannuation Contributions

I just saw this on the Colonial First State website:

"More generous rules for excess contributions:
In the past, if you went over your concessional contribution cap accidentally or otherwise, you’d be penalised effectively by having to pay the highest tax rate on the excess amount. But from
1 July 2013, you pay tax at your normal marginal tax rate on any excess concessional contributions, plus an interest charge. You'll also have the ability to withdraw up to 85% of any excess concessional contribution made. Note that this does not apply to contributions you have made in excess of the concessional cap before 1 July 2013."

I had heard there would be some change to the excess contributions regime but didn't know the details. But this is pretty unclear. Looking at the ATO website they don't have any clear information available yet on exactly how it would work. It looks like you can pay the extra tax at your own marginal rate and leave the money in the fund. The longer you wait to pay the excess tax, the more interest you will pay. But the ATO also says that "you will be liable for the excess concessional contributions charge." It doesn't say how much that will be - or perhaps that is the interest that the other articles I found mention.

I am stuck making excess contributions (more than $25k currently) because the universities' superannuation scheme has employers contributing 17% of your salary to the fund. And, no, you can't get them to reduce it or pay part of it as a "non-concessional contribution". At least the excess for me is less than $1000.  In Snork Maiden's case I just realised that after the latest round of pay increases she will now be over the cap. We have been contributing $400 every two weeks as a "salary sacrifice" contribution on top of the employer contribution of 15.4%. We'll reduce this to $350.

And Yet More Proposed Changes to Superannuation

Turns out the government has decided to abandon the idea of taxing distributions from larger superannuation accounts. The latest idea they are floating is taxing earnings of larger accounts. But the threshold would be much higher than $800k. This after destroying further the confidence of investors that superannuation payouts won't be taxed. And of course, this further complicates the system. Probably this won't happen because there is no chance I think that this government will be re-elected in September. Of course, none of these changes applies to the huge superannuation benefits that members of parliament receive. Those should definitely be abolished.

More Changes to Superannuation?

The Australian Labor government is floating the idea of taxing distributions from superannuation accounts (retirement accounts) if the balance is above $800k. Currently distributions are tax free but there are taxes on contributions and earnings though these are below the usual income tax rates. The tax free distributions were introduced by the Liberal government in 2006. That was a step towards moving the Australian system towards the Roth IRA model. The US Roth IRA taxes contributions at normal rates and then has no tax on earnings or distributions. The Australian government recently made changes to increase the contributions tax for earners above $300k and reduce it for those under $30k that seemed a further step towards the Roth IRA model. But this new move would just complicate things. It is the fact that earnings in the fund are taxed and that there have been so many changes to the system that has resulted in superannuation being so complicated in Australia. The US system is much simpler. There is a variety of different account types but none of them have earnings taxed - only contributions or distributions. Therefore, no tax return or audit is needed for a retirement account. As a result it is easy to set up an IRA, the US equivalent of a self managed superannuation fund, while it is complex in Australia and only worthwhile for large amounts of money because of the costs.

If the Australian government really wants to tax distributions I recommend they just move to the US 401k model where only distributions are taxed and contributions and earnings are not. I doubt they will do that. The Labor Party and the Treasury see any "tax concession" as equivalent to a government expenditure and they want to eliminate all of them if possible.

This has implications about whether to make "nonconcessional contributions" i.e. after tax contributions in the next decade. If distributions will be taxed there is little point in making after tax contributions of course, given that I don't pay tax on the earnings of my investments outside super at the moment (due to accumulated capital losses and deductions which result in surplus franking credits). Currently, I have $215k in my super accounts. In the next 12 years until I am 60 my contributions will be $300k assuming the current limit remains what it is. A 5% rate of return keeps me under $800. Assuming that the limit would be adjusted for inflation that's a reasonable rate of return. Of course, if I keep working and contributing past 60 then I will go over the limit. Snork Maiden would hit the limit in 2028 when she would be 53 me in 2024 when I'm 60.

Update on Incompetent TD Ameritrade Moves

Finally, I got the money I withdrew from my TD Ameritrade Roth IRA over to Interactive Brokers. It took a while because my bank account with HSBC was transferred to First Niagara and I had to update the details and confirm the account etc.

Now today I get a new e-mail from Ameritrade:

"We previously communicated to you that your Retirement Account with TD Ameritrade would be impacted by a new business policy requiring the account to be closed due to your country of residence. Upon further review, it has been determined that your Retirement Account, ending in xxxx, will no longer be impacted by this policy. Trading ability has been restored to your account, and you are no longer required to transfer or liquidate the account. We are sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused you, and are sure that you have questions. Please feel free to contact us regarding any questions or concerns at 800-669-3900 or simply reply to this message.

Sincerely, xxxx"

That is crazy! They seem very incompetent. I e-mailed them back to make sure my account is closed as I have already sold everything (and paid brokerage fees for that! Selling a mutual fund cost $50) and moved my money to another broker! At least I don't need to pay capital gains tax as the account lost money. There was just under $10k in the account and officially in Australia I am meant to pay tax on it so I wasn't that upset to have to close it. IB couldn't open a new Roth and so the money is now in a regular brokerage account.

Saving More Each Month than I Earned as a Graduate Student in a Year

As a relatively old PF blogger :) I've occasionally mentioned that young people shouldn't worry too much about saving for retirement and should enjoy life. Of course, if you are earning a high salary when you are young then go ahead and save. But there is no sense in depriving yourself if your income is low and expected to increase. I just realized that our average saving (not counting investment returns) per month is now more than I earned in a year as a graduate student twenty years ago. I earned between $9k and $10k a year back then (around 1992). Yes, prices have probably about doubled since then, and the Australian Dollar is extremely strong now which makes our current savings particularly high in US Dollar terms, but then let's say we save in 3 months what I earned in a year in real terms and we would not be wrong. Back then I was spending more than I earned then but not dramatically so. I ended up with a negative net worth of about $11k. I expected to certainly earn more in the future than I was then and so thought this was entirely justified. On the other hand, my Dad told me I should be saving money. Of course, maybe that was because he was lending me money :) * I think the investment in my graduate education has certainly paid off. Of course, it might not have but it was hard for me to imagine that I wouldn't be earning a lot more in some job in the future.

But, I think you'll find that most people save the most for retirement in the years leading up to retirement despite all the rhetoric from the financial management industry about starting early and compounding. There is a good reason for this - their income is highest here and for most people other life expenditures are maybe declining (buying a house, having children). The latter isn't the case for us, of course. We are still looking at buying our first house.

* About $9,000 by the end. I was studying in the US as a foreign student so my ability to work while studying was very limited and I depended on what the university would pay me as a grad student. After I paid off my credit card bills in 1995 I started to pay him back. I owed about £5k when he cancelled the loan after he sold some art works he inherited 25 years earlier.

Will Close Roth IRA

I blogged a few days ago about Ameritrade dropping support for foreign investors. I got a reply from Interactive Brokers - they can't open a Roth IRA account for me and, therefore, I can't transfer that account from Ameritrade to them. So I will have to sell my investments (one mutual fund and one closed end fund) and transfer the money to my US bank account and from there to my regular brokerage account at IB. I have to pay taxes anyway on my Roth IRA account in Australia so it makes no difference as long as I live here how the account is structured. And this will be one less account to deal with.

Ameritrade No Longer Supports Foreign Customers?

I got a letter from TD Ameritrade saying they will no longer support customers in my country from 30th October. Either I need to open a new Roth IRA account with another institution and ask the new institution to transfer my account or I will need to liquidate my account. I have a brokerage account with Interactive Brokers but I suppose that I won't be able to open a new Roth IRA account as I'm not resident in the US. Anyone who has better information on this let me know, please. So, I'm guessing my best option is to just close the account. There are no net profits and there is no penalty for withdrawing your contributions. I have less than $10k in the account. PS - I just sent a "ticket" to IB asking this question.

Moominvalley July 2012 Report

A whole month has gone by with no posts since the first day of the month... This seems to be the fate of a lot of personal finance blogs, eventually after a few years they die out. But I have been blogging on my professional blog quite a lot this month. I guess there isn't much nowadays that I feel like sharing with the rest of the world on personal finance. Things have been very busy at work and I have also had flu too.

Financially, things went well. We hit new net worth highs in both Australian and US Dollar terms of $A626k (+24k) and $US659k (+42k). As you can see the Australian Dollar is again rising.



Non-retirement assets are now substantially ahead of retirement accounts again. Our rate of return was 5.26% in USD terms versus 1.4% for the MSCI and S&P500, which is nice. Only 2.87% in Australian Dollar terms though. The monthly accounts look like this:



The monthly accounts show that we earned $14.5k in salaries etc. (this includes some reimbursements) and $3.3k in retirement contributions. We spent $6.3k but some of that was work related and will be reimbursed and so the core expenditure is $5.2k in line with recent behavior. Total investment returns were $32.4k but $14.7k of that was due to the rise in the Australian Dollar. All in, net worth rose $42.3k.

I have computed Snork Maiden's taxes for this year and it looks like she owes a little money. So I won't submit the return until October when I do mine. My taxes for the year are now in the region of $A42k. My tax reducing strategies are having little impact now given my large rise in income. I guess that is a good thing.

Also, after both our salaries went up my employer is contributing more than the $25k annual concessional limit to superannuation. This means that $500 of it will be taxed at the top marginal rate. There is no way to reduce this contribution. Snork Maiden is now just below the cap including her salary sacrifice contributions. In future, we will have to reduce those, assuming the super rules stay the way they are.

Financial Planning

Life is very busy recently and so I don't have much time to blog. I haven't even posted much on my professional blog. There hasn't been much new on the financial front to write about. Anyway, today I had an appointment with a financial planner at Commonwealth Bank. It was a bit strange as a financial planning session. She didn't really seriously try to get a picture of mine and Snork Maiden's finances. She was just interested in selling me on a couple of products. One was insurance and the other superannuation. She tried to interest me in "trauma insurance" and "income protection". I'm generally a big skeptic of insurance. I promised to look into whether I already had income protection from my superannuation provider and to think about whether I need it. But I think not. On super, she could put me into a wholesale fund that has lower management fees in exchange for a $1500 up front financial advice fee. It probably will pay off. I'll look into it in more detail and report here.

Government Wimps Out and Makes Super More Complicated

So the government will increase the superannuation contributions tax to 30% but only for people who earn more than $300k per year. This is said to reduce the budget deficit by $1 billion. But if there are only 128,000 people earning more than $300k per year the total is:

128,000*$25,000*.15 = $480 million

To get to $1 billion you either have to assume that they are all over 50 with less than $500k in super in their accounts, or use 30% by mistake in the calculation. So everyone from $180k to $300k per year in income will get a 30% concession and those of us earning between $80k and $180k will get a 23% concession. But those earning more than $300k only a 15% concession. Of course, this doesn't make a lot of sense and makes super more complex. It would make much more sense to abolish the concessional tax on contributions and if that is too severe an increase in tax also cut the rate on superannuation earnings a little. This would make the system much simpler by getting rid of the distinction between concessional and non-concessional contributions, salary sacrificing etc. Of course, Labor is still hoping that public servants and maybe some others earning between $80k and $300k a year will still vote for them. So they haven't raised their tax.

Budget Cuts and Superannuation

Here in Australia we are now in the run-up to the annual federal government budget announcement. All kinds of ideas that might be in the budget are always floated in the run-up. One big one in the last few days is the idea of cutting superannuation tax concessions. Superannuation is the Australian retirement account system. It is very complex due to the nature of the tax regime. At the moment contributions are taxed at 15% rather than at people's marginal tax rate. Earnings of the funds are taxed at concessional rates and there is no tax when the money is withdrawn and once you are in the withdrawal phase there is no tax on earnings either. The latter two concessions were introduced by the previous Liberal government. So the most likely outcome is to remove the concessions for contributions. This will be a further step towards making our system like the US Roth IRA. But we will still be tax fund earnings which is the main contributor to complexity in the Australian system.

Even though obviously it is personally a bad thing for contributions to be taxed more, I think it is a sensible move. Why should high income earners get such a big concession and low income earners none? * It is the easiest way to push the budget towards surplus without raising tax rates or cutting welfare payments. All government departments in Canberra are already getting massive cuts to their operating budgets, but really there just aren't that many public servants in Canberra that this can make a really big difference, especially as in the short-term they are getting redundancy payments. I would be in favor of cutting some of the family welfare payments that the former Liberal government introduced and that Joe Hockey seems to regret, but I can't see Labor doing that.

* Of course you can flip this argument and say we should have a flat tax and super contributions are a good first step towards a flat tax. But that ain't happening any time soon...

Concessional Contribution Cap and Unisuper

Unisuper say they are concerned that the Australian government will not index the concessional superannuation limit this year. The issue is that employers in the university sector are contributing 17% of employees stated salaries to the Unisuper superannuation fund. In other words, for someone earning $A100k per year they contribute $A17k to this retirement fund in addition to the salary they pay. Somewhat similar to the "matching contribution" idea in the US, though no match is required from the employee. This is greatly in excess of the 9% which the government mandates employers to pay.

The problem for high earning employees is that the limit on pre-tax (or concessional or salary sacrifice) contributions is $A25k a year. I'm just below this threshold at the moment. Probably, when our salaries go up in July I'll be over it. Concessional super contributions are taxed at 15% rather than your usual marginal tax rate (mine is 37% + medicare). If you try to contribute too much the fund will accept the money but the government taxes it at the top tax rate - 46.5% (including medicare). So a little bit of my salary will get taxed at the top rate and then stuffed in an account I can't access for at least another 13 years...

The logical thing would be to reduce the contribution from 17% for high earners and pay that out to employees as extra salary. But that seems to be too simple for the convoluted Australian super system. Instead, Unisuper just lobbies the government to raise the cap. I guess it's not in their interest to reduce contributions and the unions who negotiated this deal (which I don't belong to) don't care that some full professors have to pay some extra tax.

It won't amount to much money for me, but it just seems silly. For those earning more than $A180k a year, the rate is no higher than their usual marginal tax rate.

Annual Review: Part II

Not sure how serious this annual review is going to be. I'm just going to post what I feel like. This is what happened to net worth in Australian Dollars over the course of the year:



We ended the year with somewhat higher net worth but retirement savings actually declined while non-retirement savings overtook retirement savings for the first time since the onset of the financial crisis. This trend will continue this year, I think. Maybe once I turn 50 I might increase retirement savings above the tax concessional level * as the money can be accessed from age 60.

This chart shows underlying story:



Persistent saving throughout the year in both types of accounts and persistent investment losses at a similar rate on both.

*$A25k a year for each of us can go in after 15% tax. Contributions above this rate are taxed at our marginal rates.

Of Course Compulsory Super is a Cost to Employees...

A reader asks the Sydney Morning Herald:

"Q The money that an employer ''compulsorily contributes'' to my super * comes from where? Is it my money contributed on my behalf by the employer, or is it the employer's money, begrudgingly contributed to my super because the government orders it?"

and the answer:

"A The contribution is a cost to employers and, although contributed on behalf of the employee, is not a cost to them unless they are employed under a salary-packaging arrangement."

While this might be legally correct it is absolutely not correct from an economic point of view. It reminds me of the claims back in 2000 from the government that the GST (=value added tax) wasn't a tax on business but just a tax collected by businesses from consumers for the government. If employers didn't have to make 9% contributions to super they would pay workers higher nominal wages by the same amount (presuming that workers value super and extra salary the same and so labor supply was unaffected which wouldn't be quite true). It is very much forced saving by workers. That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it. It is a kind of behavioral economics policy - forcing people to save in their own interest because they wouldn't do enough of it otherwise.

* Super(annuation) is the retirement account system in Australia. Employers must by law contribute a minimum 9% of the stated salary on top of the salary actually paid to a superannuation account. This will be rising to 12% if current legislation is passed.

Average Australian Households

Thanks to high house prices and compulsory superannuation the average Australian household is much wealthier than the average American household.

We are below average with a net worth of about $A510k vs. $A720k for the average household. The average house was worth $A541k for those who owned their home outright and $A521k for those with mortgages. The average superannuation (retirement) balance was $A154k. Here we are above average at $A261k. That includes a couple of US retirement accounts though.

Our income (not discussed in this article) puts us in the top 10% or so probably of households and in the long-run I expect we will end up wealthwise in the top 20% of households who average $A2.2 million.

Getting on Track for a Sustainable Retirement: A Reality Check on Savings and Work

A recent paper by Wade Pfau really overturns some standard ideas about retirement planning. The usual story includes picking a "number", planning how much you need to save to get to the number and starting early with saving in order to benefit from compounding interest. This table from the paper:



shows what percentage of final retirement assets could be explained by accumulated wealth a given number of years before retirement for a bond-stock portfolio simulated over the last century or so for the US. Even with an all bond portfolio only 43% of final wealth could be explained by accumulated assets 10 years from retirement. For stock oriented portfolios very little of the variation could be explained. It's all down to the luck of the market returns in the final 10 years. So tracking net worth doesn't really help much in telling you how much you'll have to retire on after all... Early compounding doesn't make much difference because there isn't much wealth to benefit from compounding.

So what does Pfau recommend? Calculating a minimum safe savings rate based on age, accumulated assets, and allocation. For someone of 55 years old who has saved 4 times their salary and wants to replace 50% of their salary and retire in 10 years and has 60% in stocks, the minimum safe savings rate is 52% of income! For a 50% chance of success of achieving a sustainable retirement only an 18.2% savings rate is needed. Having more wealth earlier does help reduce these rates. Not because of compounding but just in terms of piling up more savings. There are more analyses in the paper of the effect of retiring later etc.

Superannuation Trends

This is a graph of our three Australian superannuation (retirement accounts). The green is Snork Maiden who has now been working for four years and accumulated $A50k. The blue is my current account where I worked one part-time job in 2009-2010 and then a full time job from the beginning of 2011 and accumulated about half as much. The red is the account from when I worked in Australia previously that is heavily invested in Australian stocks. So it fluctuated dramatically through the GFC and the recent market correction. The accounts that are currently accumulating were little affected by market fluctuations. They are also much more diversified.

Buying Shares

I've actually been buying shares recently. Adding $A5,000 to the CFS Geared Share Fund (large cap Australian shares with in built borrowing and today I bought 5000 shares of Qantas (QAN.AX). That was a departure from my recent investment plan. The only other stocks of individual companies I hold are Legend International (LGDI.OB) and Bekaert (BEKB.BR) and neither has been doing well lately. Still, if analyst forecasts are even slightly right, Qantas is very cheap and it is trading a lot below book value. The two moves are about a 2.5% investment of net worth. Of course, we have automatic investments of more than $A5,000 happening every month anyway. $A1,000 in each of mine and Snork Maiden's CFS managed fund (mutual fund) accounts and retirement contributions - about $A2,000 for me and $A1,400 for her. These are in diversified but equity biased funds.

I also just bought a ticket to the US today. On Qantas.