Retiring in Australia and Spending Dividends Only

Big ERN has a new blogpost about the safe rate of withdrawal in retirement. He takes on people who say that you can avoid the problem of selling assets when their price is low by investing in high-yielding assets and only spending the dividends or interest. The highest yielding portfolio he looks at has yielded an average of 3.6% p.a. and it looks like it ends up selling capital in the great recession of 2008-9.

Australian shares have a high dividend yield. They yielded 4.25% last year not counting franking credits. If as ERN assumes you withdraw 4% of the portfolio in the first year and then increase that withdrawal by the rate of inflation can you avoid selling shares? The short answer is: yes!

These are my assumptions: We invest in the ASX 200 index without fees (could be replicated by a portfolio of 20 stocks maybe?) and we don't pay taxes (it's a superannuation account in pension phase) and so we get the grossed up value of the dividends (Labor plans to eliminate these refunds if they win the next election). I start with $900k in shares and $100k in cash and get the Reserve Bank interest rate as interest on the cash. Then all dividends and interest are paid into the cash account.

My first simulation assumes we retire at the end of March 2000. This was not a good time to retire as it was just before the dotcom/tech crash. But the ASX200 index started in April 2000 and so data before then is not very reliable. This is what happens:

Starting in 2000 we would now have almost $1.7 million in shares and $900k in cash. If we'd reinvested some of the dividends we probably would have been even better off.

To stress test the model, I also do a simulation that assumes you retire at the end of December 2007 just before the great recession/global financial crisis. This is what happens then:

Obviously, it's not as good and you would have $970k now, more than 10 years later. In real terms the value of the portfolio will have fallen substantially. But so far, you won't have had to sell a single share with $138k in cash currently. Over the last couple of decades this strategy has worked well.

This suggests that investing in stocks in countries with traditionally high dividend yields like Australia and only spending the dividends is a viable investment strategy. If you need to pay taxes on withdrawals as in the case of a U.S. 401k account then you will need to start with more money invested to fund the same level of spending.

Today's Moves

I bought more corporate bonds. This time in Royal Bank of Canada and Welltower. These were the highest yielding investment grade bonds that I could actually buy that mature in April. $US25k in one and $US35k in the other. Not ideal, as the commission is higher for the first $10k but those were the amounts on offer. I was looking to buy bonds of Siam Bank Corporation, but the minimum purchase turned out to be $US200k for some reason. I also tried to buy Glencore bonds, but when I put my bid in the market, the offer disappeared from the screen. I waited a while and I didn't get the bonds. Very weird. Probably it makes sense to wait until I have enough cash to buy $US100k and buy Treasury bills unless there is a sufficient amount of corporate bond with a high enough yield to make it worthwhile. After commissions these two purchases probably end up breakeven with a Treasury bill. As I begin to buy bonds at longer maturities though, the commission will be spread out over a longer period. I use the bond scanner provided by Interactive Brokers to find available bonds with the right characteristics.

I also am looking at shifting our allocation in the PSS(AP) superannuation fund from 50/50 "balanced" and "aggressive" to 100% balanced as part of our general de-risking. I am again reminded of how shocking the lack of transparency about investments is for Australian funds compared to US funds. All the information they provide in the annual report is the percentage of the fund allocated to "equities", "alternatives" etc. with no further details. PSS(AP) actually used to provide more, but not a lot more, information than this. An interesting fact from the annual report is that employer contributions totaled $A1.154 billion and employee contributions $A55 million in the 2017-18 financial year. Not many people are making additional contributions or they are not making very large contributions. This makes sense as the employer (the Public Service) contributes 15.4% on top of the official salary to the fund. It's only interesting because for the defined benefit fund at Australian universities – not part of the public service, though they are in the public sector – employees are required to contribute 7% on top of the employer 17% in order to get full benefits. I opted out of the defined benefit fund. Our employee contributions at PSS(AP) are actually as big as the employer contribution at the moment.

P.S.
Basec on reading the Unisuper report, employee contributions might only include non-concessional or "after tax" contributions and not salary-sacrificed or "pre-tax" contributions. This is because the stated contributions tax in the report is 15% of the employer contributions. By contrast with PSSAP though, Unisuper defined contribution members make massive non-concessional contributions (see p52 of the report), even though the employer makes 17% contributions to the fund.

Portfolio Charts

Portfolio Charts is a really interesting website where you can do simulations of safe and permanent withdrawal rates and many other things for a range of investment portfolios. These include predefined portfolios and you can also build your own portfolio using a range of ETFs. Here for example is Tony Robbins' version of Ray Dalio's All Weather portfolio:

The orange line gives the withdrawal rate which means that you wouldn't have run out of money if you retired in any year since 1970 and retired for the length of time on the x-axis. The green line is the withdrawal rate that means that you will have at least as much money as you started with in real terms. It's interesting how these go in opposite directions as the length of retirement increases. If you retired for 30 years the permanent withdrawal rate is 3.8%. This portfolio had an average real return of 5.5%. The best performing portfolio in terms of withdrawal rates is the site creator's own "Golden Butterfly" which has 40% stocks, 40% bonds, and 20% gold:

This portfolio had a real return of 6.5%.

An interesting point is that safe and permanent withdrawal rates vary a lot by country. The site allows you to choose the US, UK, Canada, and Germany as home countries. The linked article also includes Australia, but unfortunately the site itself doesn't allow you to do analysis for Australia. A big caveat is, of course, that all this depends on historical returns. If bonds, for example, don't do as well going forward as they did from 1980 till recently then, withdrawal rates are going to be lower. Choice of alternative investments is also limited to gold, a commodities ETF, and a REIT ETF.

Crowdfunded Real Estate

A relatively new investment concept is crowdfunding real estate investments. The idea is that an individual could directly invest small amounts in a range of properties or development opportunities thus reducing their risk. Rather than a fund manager picking the properties, investors could evaluate deals themselves.

I read about Fundrise on Financial Samurai. It seems to actually be closer to a traditional unlisted real estate managed fund, except there is more of a property development angle. They allow investments in both real estate debt and equity. They claim very high historical rates of return. I find it hard to understand how they could be so high. Equity investments could have leverage but debt investments must return the interest rate on the mortgage minus costs? I didn't feel that there was enough transparency around how returns are generated. In any case, unfortunately, it is not open to non-US investors.

So, I looked for crowdfunded real estate opportunities in Australia. This is what I found:

Crowdfundup – I only found one active project on the site.

Estatebaron – This website has more active deals. It focuses exclusively on property development. There seems to be very little information about each project and the site is much less polished.

Brickraise – The link seems to be dead.

Domacom – This is an ASX listed company. The company looked like they were heading to bankruptcy before a recent fundraising. The new money will only last just over half a year as their burn rate is AUD 5 million a year. They will need more than AUD 0.5 billion assets under management to break even given a 0.8% of NAV management fee. However, they have the largest number of deals on their site and have high quality information. Deals include a wide range of projects including solar farms and bioenergy as well as more conventional real estate. This is something I might consider when we have an SMSF up and running if it looks like the company will survive.

Based on this, real estate crowdfunding is not well developed in Australia. Do you know of other better websites?

Was It a Good Decision to Switch to Defined Contribution Superannuation?

Back in 2009 when I started with my current employer, I carried out a cost-benefit analysis to see whether it made sense to stay in the default defined benefit scheme or to switch to the defined contribution scheme. As a result of the analysis I switched to defined contribution.

Was that a good decision. Using the info in the Unisuper PDS and my data I compute that if I retired at the end of this month I would get a lump sum of AUD 213k. My actual Unisuper account is at AUD 284k. So, so far it's been a good decision.

For context, in Britain, there have been strikes and demonstrations against the plan to switch academics from  defined benefit to defined contribution. But I see defined benefit as a regressive form of socialism where people who are promoted near the end of their career suck the benefits from the system. This is because the lump sum benefit is proportional to the members salary in the last 5 years. I've seem quite a few people promoted to professor in their last few years and of course, deans and other senior administrators benefit heavily from the scheme. This is at the expense of successful researchers who are promoted early and stay in research at a more or less constant salary.

FIRE?

I just read what was a controversial blogpost at Financial Samurai:"Why $5 Million Is Barely Enough To Retire Early With A Family". The post analyses the income and expenditure of a family living in west Los Angeles. A lot of commenters are critical of the assumptions and spending behavior of this family and some people provide some alternative numbers. That got me thinking about the numbers for our family in a bit more detail than I had thought about previously. In the following, I assume we retire where we currently live in Canberra, Australia.

Our net worth is only a bit over half that in Ken's blogpost: AUD 4 million (USD 3 million). We spend about AUD 10k (USD 7k per month) including mortgage interest (but not taxes) compared to their USD 14k per month. If we retired, most of our spending would be unchanged. We don't wear fancy clothes to work and we don't commute long distances. Assuming we continue daycare for 3 days a week (a very good idea in my opinion) we would lose the government subsidy, increasing our spending by AUD8k per year. Anyway, we would progress to private pre-school and likely private school after that going forward so we will have schooling expenses of a similar level. Unlike the American case studies, our health insurance would be unchanged at AUD 6k per year. In fact, it would make sense in my opinion to drop the private health cover and rely on the government system as we will no longer need to pay the Medicare Levy Surcharge if we don't have private insurance. Moominmama will probably want to keep the coverage, though, because she thinks private everything is better (see schools above). Also, unlike the US, we don't need to worry about saving for college tuition because almost all Australian universities are public and students borrow the tuition costs from the government and pay it back as their post-graduation income allows.

Another thing that would be more expensive for us is international travel. This year we traveled as a family for a month to three Northern European countries and Japan. As I went to three international conferences, my fare was paid my employer. I also deducted two weeks accommodation for two conferences which were in the same city and half my wife's airfare from our taxes. She also attended one of the conferences. If we had to pay for everything ourselves, it would have cost us about AUD 5k more.

On the income side, if we stop working, our tax will fall to effectively zero. We will put as much as possible into superannuation and two tax-free thresholds and franking credits should mean no tax on the earnings of the "taxable" part of the portfolio. If I get back into trading successfully, we probably will have to pay tax again, but then our income will be higher too.

So AUD 130k or so per year is about 3.25% of the net worth, which is close to ERN's recommended withdrawal rate. So, in theory we could retire now. As, I'm in my mid-50s, this would still qualify as early retirement. However, I am a bit worried about rising expenditure and a looming economic downturn. Also, at the moment I am happy with my job and so it doesn't make sense to sacrifice the salary. So, at least for the next year we won't implement the RE part of FIRE.

Self Managed Superannuation

I am exploring setting up a self managed superannuation fund (SMSF). I want to do this so that I can implement our target portfolio investment strategy and so I can put higher tax investments into the lower tax superannuation environment. Managed futures are a tax ineffective investment outside super when your marginal tax rate is 47%. Inside superannuation they will be taxed at 15%.

Setting up an SMSF is very complicated in Australia compared to the US where you can just open an IRA account with a broker like any other brokerage account and the only issue is limits on contributions and later on minimum withdrawals. For standard IRAs you pay tax on withdrawals only, on your regular tax return. The main reason Australian SMSFs are complex is taxation but some of the bureaucracy just seems to be for the sake of it... In Australia, pretax or concessional contributions are taxed at 15% (or 30% for high income levels) going in, and you can also make after tax contributions. Its necessary to keep track of which were taxed how. Then earnings are taxed at 15% (10% for capital gains) and can be offset by franking credits and foreign tax paid. When you finally withdraw your money, no tax is due and earnings of the account are untaxed if you set up a pension, though now there is a cap of $1.6 million on the amount of assets whose earnings are untaxed. So funds need to submit tax returns separate from their members. And they need to be audited annually and there are lots of ways they could become non-compliant with the rules. And an SMSF is a trust which is set up as a separate legal entity. You might also want to set up a company to act as trustee!

You could go to a lawyer to set up the trust and to a local accountant to help audit the fund and do everything else yourself. But there are many providers who streamline the set up and administration of SMSFs. You can get "year-end" administration which just helps get everything in order for the tax return and audit, or you can get a full daily service. Though I do our own tax returns, I have decided to go for the full daily service as I want to outsource this as much as possible (looks like I am going to have to do tax returns for my son too and am also looking at setting up a company...) and want to be confident that I am compliant with the rules, because the penalties for non-compliance are very severe.

This is a great site with information about different providers of services for self-managed superannuation funds. I visited the websites of all the providers that offer a daily service. Some sites have a lot information and some have next to none. The latter want you to phone them to give you the details. I have a strong preference for financial services that are as transparent as possible. I also investigated Commonwealth Securities and Dixon Advisory, which are not on this list.

Dixon are based in Canberra and I often go past their offices on Northbourne Avenue. Years ago, I used to read Daryl Dixon's column in the Canberra Times. Their service combines admin and investment advice and costs from $3,000 for a $333k account to a maximum of $6,000 for accounts above $666k. To make investments, you have to call their broker and the commissions for shares are 1.1%, which is capped at $400 for Australian shares and uncapped for foreign shares. I don't need investment advice and trading is way too expensive.

Commonwealth Securities is a more realistic option. Including audit fees, they charge a flat $3,000 a year. On a $900k account that is 1/3%, which is reasonable. Trading fees are 0.12% for Australian stocks, which is good though not the lowest, and 0.31% for US stocks and 0.41% for shares in the UK and many other countries, which is expensive but not as outrageous as Dixon. You can't trade CfDs (which are offered by CommSec for other accounts) or futures (which aren't offered by CommSec).

You can set up a trading account for an SMSF with Interactive Brokers, which can trade anything you like for low fees, and then find an administration provider who is prepared to work with them. Determining who can work with IB is what I need to do next. You can trade futures in an SMSF as long as it fits within the written investment strategy (yes, you are required to write one) and other risk related rules.

Two providers on my list, who have won awards and who I am going to investigate next, are Heffron and Super Guardian. I am impressed with the transparent information on Super Guardian's site. They also have an endorsement from Chris Cuffe. Super Guardian charge more the more investments you have. If we have up to 20 investments then they are a similar price to CommSec. Heffron charge a flat fee of $3,300 for their top level service.

Delevering

I just made a big switch in my Colonial First State superannuation account to reduce risk. Stock markets still look bullish but the Fed shows no sign of stopping raising interest rates, risking an inversion of the yield curve. They have been saying that this time is different and that an inverted yield curve doesn't mean that there will be a recession. But though the sample size is very small, it has been a good predictor in the past. We are not yet at yield curve inversion but it still could make sense to reduce risk. My CFS superannuation account has been invested very aggressively. At the end of September this was the allocation:

CFS Geared Share Fund: 48.9%
CFS Geared Growth Plus: 20.2%
CFS Conservative: 10.2%
Platinum International: 10.2%
CFS Developing Companies: 10.5%

So about 70% was in geared (leveraged) funds. Geared Share Fund is large cap Australian shares. Geared Growth is diversified. The new allocation, which is much closer to our new long-term allocation is:

CFS Geared Share Fund: 15%
CFS Geared Growth Plus: 18%
CFS Conservative: 4%
Platinum International: 23%
CFS Developing Companies: 20%
Generation Global Share: 20%

Both Platinum, which is a hedge fund (long and short global equities) and Generation performed well in the Great Recession. Doing this transaction in a superannuation account is tax free - capital gains tax of 10% is paid on unrealised gains on a continuous basis. There is just the cost of the entry/exit spreads.

I changed the allocation for new investments in Moominmama's CFS account, which is not a superannuation account to only buy the non-geared funds going forward. If things look more bearish, we may yet do a switch there too.

Longer Term Planning

I was rejected for the two jobs I recent applied for. One in Australia after interview and one in the UK pre-interview. So, it looks like we stay in Australia in this city for the moment. It also looks like I will continue in my job next year, but I am seriously thinking about "retiring" at the end of 2019 when I will be 55.

Hopefully, the probate situation is finalized before the end of this year and we can start to restructure our finances. This is what I am thinking to do:

1. We will need to set up a trust account or something less formal for little Moomin for the relatively small amount of money he will inherit. Need to wait to hear what we need to do. According to the will, he won't get the money till he's 23 years old...

2. Almost pay off our mortgage and then redraw it and use it to pay off margin debt and add to a trading account. We can then deduct the mortgage interest from our taxes and it is a lower interest rate than the current margin loan.

3. Set up a self-managed superannuation fund (SMSF) and roll my existing Colonial First State superannuation fund into it as well as contributing AUD 300k for each of me and Moominmama. This would then have about AUD 900k to start with. The reason to go down the road of self-managed super is to be able to invest in managed futures, which are a tax ineffective investment outside super. We would put all our high tax investments into the fund as well as some Australian shares with franking credits to reduce the tax.

4. Scale trading up to full size. At the moment, I am thinking we will need to set up a company for trading. Corporation tax on small businesses is 27.5% vs. top personal marginal rates of 47% +.* My understanding is that you don't need to pay out all profits as dividends and so retained earnings are more lightly taxed. But I will need advice on this. It would also protect the rest of our assets against something catastrophic happening. The company could also be the trustee for the superannuation fund, which would allow us to maintain the SMSF if we left Australia.** These are just my current understandings – obviously I am going to need to get professional advice on all of this.

5. Estate planning. Currently we don't even have wills. This is an area I know little about but will need to deal with. What I want to avoid is the situation we faced with my mother where the government dictated investment policy to us after she wasn't capable of making decisions - despite giving us power of attorney.

* The downside of companies is that they don't get a capital gains tax discount. Individual investors in Australia only pay half the marginal rate on capital gains on investments held for more than a year. But the advantage of only paying 27.5 or 30% tax on trading income rather than 47% tax before investing it in other investments outweighs the discount. If Labor reduce the discount, this will be even more the case.

** You can't be the trustee of an SMSF if you aren't resident in Australia. Using a corporate trustee gets around that. There is a problem in leaving Australia and receiving income through an Australian company as it means we would suffer from double taxation. In Australia, dividends from the company would have attached franking credits so that we would only need to pay the difference between 27.5% and 47% on dividends. But if you live outside Australia in a location where you need to pay tax on foreign income (obviously one reason to move might be to reduce tax...) then we would need to pay the foreign tax on top of the Australian company tax. Investments already inside the company are invested in Australian stocks that pay franked dividends, then the franking credits on the dividends received would mean that the company wouldn't pay net tax on its investment income, so that won't be double taxed if we moved overseas. But trading income would be taxed at 27.5% and then again if paid out as dividends. So, we would need to do a restructure in the most tax-effective way at that point. In an earlier version of this post, I did think about having the company being the beneficiary of a discretionary trust that actually did the trading and then just changing the flow of income. But the trustee of the fund has to pay tax for offshore beneficiaries. So, that doesn't help.

New Era in Moomin Valley

In a few months we will reach "financial independence" - our annual spending will be feasible with a little less than a 3% p.a. withdrawal rate. About 60% of this was due to our own efforts working, saving, and investing over the last 24 years and 40% from inheritance. I never depended on receiving the inheritance, which is why I saved so hard. Because I knew finding an academic job could be very hard when my initial short-term contracts ended, I saved up to 50% a year at times. This allowed me to live for a year in 2001-2 without working for pay, traveling around the world looking for work. Similarly, when we moved to Australia, I could experiment with trading in the financial markets while exploring alternatives.

On the other hand, I think I was willing to take more risk based on the probability that we would receive a substantial amount. In the case of the financial crisis in 2008-9, I took on too much risk. The pressure of trying to make a living from trading with a small amount of capital combined with the volatility of the financial crisis was too much and I decided to stage an academic career comeback, which has been very successful.

The other half of the financial independence equation in the blogging community is usually "retire early". I don't have any plan to do that any time soon. I like the research side of my work and I have my teaching etc organized so that going forward it shouldn't be too hard - I only need to teach during one half of the year for now. As things are at the moment, it would be hard to find a better job than this. So, it doesn't make any sense to sacrifice my salary. I am actually exploring a potential career move to another bigger city. That job would have more admin and maybe no teaching. Introspection tells me that I wouldn't like to retire currently.  On the other hand, Moominmama is pretty frustrated with her work at the moment and so now has options to take a break and consider alternatives.

On the other hand, our spending is growing by more than the rate of inflation and I expect that to continue. So the current 3% withdrawal rate would become more than a 3% rate over time unless investment returns are very good, which does not seem likely. Continuing to earn some money does sound good in those circumstances.

Is continuing to work limiting our location choices? At the moment, I don't think there is another location that we would both agree on and which would make practical sense. We have to consider education opportunities for little Moomin. So, moving to a small town in Australia does not sound like a good move from that perspective. The nice parts (with good education) of the two biggest Australian cities are extremely expensive and would take us out of the financial independence zone. We definitely would never move to Moominmama's home country (she doesn't even want to visit at the moment). Moominmama is not enthusiastic about moving to either of my home countries. One is too cold and dark as far as she is concerned (Northern Europe) and the other too foreign and dangerous (Middle East). That leaves Southern Europe as a sensible or feasible alternative, but I don't think we want Moomin to grow up speaking Spanish or French? I think it would be hard for Moominmama to learn those languages too, though not difficult for me. So, continuing to work is not stopping us from making a move to another location that we could or would want to make.

So, for now not much will change, but this blog will change. I plan to stop reporting actual earning, spending, and net worth figures. Going forward, all numbers will be in percentage terms only. When the vast majority of our net worth was the result of our own work and effort I was happy to report those numbers, and reporting, even though it is mostly anonymously, helped keep us on track. But now that so much of our net worth has not come from our own efforts and we don't have the goal of achieving financial independence anymore, I don't want to report the numbers any more. On the other hand, I'm not going to erase the existing blog.

Our long term goal now is to pass on at least as much wealth in real terms to the next generation as we received from the previous one. My parents also inherited more than 2/3 of their eventual net worth, though they also saved and worked hard to build up wealth in earlier years. They eventually passed on what they inherited.

Safe Withdrawal Rates

Interesting simulations of safe withdrawal rates over longer time horizons by ERN. The lowest withdrawal rate simulated is 3% p.a. Ed Thorp states that 2% is actually the safe capital preserving withdrawal rate. Our current spending is about 2.75% of estimated total net worth including the inherited money. But I expect our spending to continue to increase faster than inflation for a long time to come.

June 2017 Report

This month we spent a lot of money. We went on vacation to Singapore - our first trip overseas with little Moomin. Since last year there are now direct flights between our city and there - one of two international destinations now available on direct flights. I think next time we will go to the other country where the weather is much more to my liking, at least in the summer. The trip ended up costing a lot more than expected...

This month's accounts are very preliminary as they include estimates of franking (tax) credits on managed funds ($3.9k) that we won't actually know till the end of July. Here are our monthly accounts (in AUD):

"Current other income", which is mainly salaries, was a bit higher than usual at $14.8k. Spending (not counting mortgage) was very high at $10.9k. After deducting the mortgage payment of $5.5k (which includes implicit interest saving due to our offset account - the actual mortgage payment was about $698 less than this) - there were three mortgage payments this month rather than the usual two - we dissaved $1.5k on the current account and added $3.5k in added housing equity. Retirement contributions were quite high at $5.1k as I got three retirement contributions this month. Net saving was, therefore, $7.1k across the board.

From next month I will stop my voluntary retirement contributions of $100 a week due to the reduction in the concessional contribution cap from $35k a year to $25k a year. My employer contributions will actually exceed the cap. As is usual in the public sector they are much higher than the 9.5% compulsory contributions. The excess will just be taxed at my marginal rate like a non-concessional contribution. I might still add some non-concessional contributions to superannuation in a few years time but don't feel like locking up more money than necessary when there is no immediate tax advantage and the rules on taxation in the retirement phase, could change at any time...

The Australian Dollar rose from USD 0.7437 to USD 0.7681. The ASX 200 rose by 0.17%, the MSCI World Index gained 0.50%, and the S&P 500 0.62%. We gained 0.38% in Australian Dollar terms and 3.68% in US Dollar terms. So, unusually we outperformed both the Australian and  international markets. The best performer in dollar terms was CFS Geared Share Fund up $5.6k. Next best was Platinum Capital, gaining $3.0k across our various different holdings. The worst performer was PSSAP superannuation fund, losing $0.8k. Small cap Australian stocks was the best performing asset class in percentage terms, followed by hedge funds. All other asset classes gained apart from commodities and real estate.

As a result of all this, net worth rose AUD 9k to $1.839 million (new high) or rose USD 51k to USD 1.413 million (also a new high).

30th June is the end of the Australian financial year. Over the last 12 months we had a rate of return of 13.7% in AUD terms (17.5% in USD terms). The ASX200 gained 14.1%, while the MSCI gained 19.4% in USD terms. Net worth increased AUD 262k and we are still on track to get close to the optimistic projection for 2017. Of course, anything could happen in the next 6 months!

Australian Federal Budget 2016

The budget released yesterday actually turned out pretty well for me despite some of the leaked stories. In the end the income level at which the 30% superannuation contributions tax start was lowered from $300,000 to $250,000 rather than $180,000 and the cap on concessional (pre-tax) contributions for people over 50 will stay at $35,000 per year. The cap for under 50s is reduced from $30k to $25k. The biggest changes are a lifetime cap on non-concessional (post-tax) contributions of $500k rather than $180k per year. I might just contribute $500k just before retiring, but it's not going to change my plans. Also there is a $1.6 million cap on how much you can transfer into a tax free account after you retire from an accumulation fund. This number seems to be designed to be equal to roughly the maximum contributions allowed under the new rules over a lifetime. Effectively earnings in retirement on earnings in the accumulation phase above the rate of inflation would be taxed....  Currently, I have $385k in Australian super. If I work to age 65 and continue my current rate of contribution I would add $450k in concessional contributions. So, I could certainly add the $500k just before retiring, as long as investment returns are not too spectacular in the interim.

Other news in the budget is that the 37% tax bracket threshold will be raised to $87k p.a. instead of $80k. That would reduced my tax by $315. So, all in all, it was an OK budget.

P.S.

Now I just read that the concessional cap has been lowered to $25k for everyone, regardless of age. So, what I read yesterday was wrong. But this is from 1 July 2017. So, in the next tax year I can keep my current contributions rate and then after that I will have to cut them and I will have a $3,000 tax hike. Of course, if Labor come to power at the election on 2 July this year that might not happen...

There are a lot of changes, which mostly make super more complicated.

Entering the Top Tax Bracket

Only 3% of Australian taxpayers are in the top tax bracket, which starts at $180,000 a year and has a marginal tax rate currently of 49%. And now I'm one of them, I think. IPE just declared a 5.75 cents a share dividend payable next month. I have 100,000 shares and so the dividend is $5,750. And it is a totally unfranked dividend. After this, I'm currently estimating my taxable income for the year at $182k and I'm now expecting to pay $3,000 extra tax at tax time. That also means I'm going to have to pay quarterly tax from now on.

I guess this is a good problem to have, but it feels kind of absurd that I'm now in the top tax bracket. Of course, when I first moved to Australia I wasn't that far from it because it kicked in at $50,000 a year in those days (1996) and my salary was a little higher than that. After "voluntary" super contributions of 7% and some deductions I was out of the zone.

Moominmama's reaction was that I should generate some business expenses to pull my income down. I could buy a nice big computer screen for home use, which I couldn't charge to my employer. It will be half price now I'm in the top tax bracket. I'm already almost maxing out my pre-tax super contributions. But spending money on stuff just to reduce tax is silly.

Superannuation Reform Again?

Changes to superannuation are a perennial topic. If the government does this - lower the threshold for the 30% super contributions tax to $180k income per year and cut the concessional cap to $20k p.a. - I figure I will have to pay almost $7,000 a year more in tax. My taxable income this year looks like being just below $180k but the threshold for the super surcharge adds things like employer super contributions and investment losses to the taxable income amount. It would make most sense to cut the non-concessional cap, which is currently $180k per year, dramatically, as that is the way that wealthy people can get really large amounts of money into the super system, which will be taxed at a zero rate once they retire. But, of course, there is no immediate revenue to be gained by cutting the non-concessional cap. To simplify the system the government could just get rid of the concessional/non-concessional distinction, stop taxing earnings and then have a simple US Roth style system. Much too logical, of course. Actually, the optimal solution, assuming that super will be taxed in some way is to go for the US 401(k)/403(b) approach where there is no tax on contributions or earnings and regular tax on payouts. This gives the the money the best opportunity to increase in value... well under some economic assumptions anyway.

Pre-Tax (Concessionary) Superannuation Contributions

After thinking about making after-tax retirement contributions, I thought today - Heh, I'm not even making the maximum pre-tax contributions. I've been making about $A28k a year in pre-tax contributions. Actually, that is supposedly my employer's contribution. In the university sector in Australia, employers contribute 17% on top of the nominal salary to superannuation for continuing (=permanent) employees, as opposed to the minimum government requirement of 9.5%. The maximum pre-tax contributions allowed for over 50's currently is $A35k per year ($A30k for under 50s). So, I just submitted the form to add $100 a week to my contributions. I didn't totally max things out to allow for a year or two of growth in salary before having to submit another form.

By the way, the standard agreement in the higher education sector includes another 8.5% pre-tax contribution from the employee's salary. I already opted out of that, because it would have been over the concessionary limit already when I started in 2011, when the concession limit was $A25k a year. Actually, I already had to withdraw an excess contribution to superannuation last year, which was a hassle, before the contribution limit was raised.

I'm still thinking about post-tax contributions. If I do it, I think I will start small at say $A1000 per month. That is small compared to the limit of $A15k per month :)

After Tax Super vs. Offset Account

At the moment, Australians can contribute up to $A180k per year to superannuation from after tax money on top of up to $A35k (if over 50) from pre-tax income. This seems like a crazy high limit and has no analogue in the US retirement system, for example. There is now a lot of talk about lifetime caps on super contributions. An easy way to do this would be to cut or eliminate this post-tax contribution limit. I had thought about making post-tax contributions starting in about 5 years time (when I would be about 55) and up to retirement. In the meantime, the plan was to build up our offset account and then pay down and redraw the mortgage. But now I am thinking that government might eliminate the post-tax option, I am wondering whether it would make sense to make these contributions sooner.

The gain from adding post-tax money to super is the tax-free earnings on the money after retiring. However, at least at the moment investment taxes are lower than regular income taxes and so we are talking about avoiding an 10% (after franking dividend tax in 38% bracket) to 23.5% (long-term capital gains tax in 45% bracket) tax starting 10 to 15 years in the future. Let's say the super investments make an 8% return, then the extra yield from avoiding tax by investing in super rather than non-super investments is about 1.3% per year. And this won't start to 10-15 years out and it is uncertain that the opportunity will go away and stop us doing that a few years later.

In the meantime the offset account is earning 4.55% tax free virtual interest with perfect certainty. A superannuation account would probably earn that after tax in the next 10-15 years, but there is a lot of uncertainty about that and the money is locked up for the next 9 years.

Is the answer to diversify and do some of both strategies?

Housing Equity and Other Savings

I've updated my "savings components" chart to include housing equity. You can see the payment from current savings (blue) to the downpayment on the house (red). Also notable is that retirement profits (green) are approaching retirement contributions (pink). Non-retirement savings have performed much worse and profits (brown line) are nowhere near the money saved from salary etc (blue line). However, they are at least above the pre-GFC peak now.

Guardianship

My mother suffers from dementia. Up till recently my brother had power of attorney to make financial decisions for her, but financial providers now wanted him to have guardianship. So he is now the official guardian but the guardianship office where he and my mother live says that her investment portfolio is too risky. They want us to not have more than 20% in equities, get rid of all alternative investments and have the rest in cash and AAA bonds. It is not as if my brother and I decided on the current allocation. It's not a lot different to how it was when my mother could make her own decisions. The problem is that cash earns almost nothing anywhere and short term bonds less than inflation. Long-term bonds have the risk that their value will fall when one day central banks raise interest rates again.

We have tried to resist this and the guardianship office people met with my brother and his lawyer but the only concession they made was to give us a year to sort it out. In the meantime we also discovered (I read about this in an article in the New York Times) that the inheritance tax free threshold in the US for foreign estates was only $60k. That means that around 40% of the money in the US based separately managed accounts in my mother's name would be taxed away after she died - the accounts had minimal if any profit - so it would be taxing savings rather than earnings. So, we closed those accounts avoiding US inheritance tax and reducing the equity share of the portfolio to about 20%. Anyway, this is a warning to get good arrangements in place while you are still capable of making your own decisions rather than having a court imposed solution.

I need to think also about how to avoid US inheritance tax. I only have about $60k of direct US investments in stocks and mutual funds. But I also have another $70k in a 403b retirement account (TIAA-CREF). So, if I suddenly died there would be about $30k in inheritance tax that Snork Maiden would have to pay (no spouse allowance for foreigners...).  There are various options including trying to roll my 403b into an Australian super fund now or setting up an Australian self-managed super fund (SMSF) and transferring the US individual investments into it. My thinking is that this would then be like having units in an Australia based managed fund. Would need to get proper advice on that first. Of course, it's not worth setting up an SMSF for just USD 60k in investments - that would be just one of the holdings of the SMSF. So, watch out if you have individual stocks in the US and aren't a US citizen.

Super Funds Make 7.5% in 2014

Says this article in the Australian. We made 12.5% on our retirement accounts this year in Australian Dollar terms. Overall return on all assets was 9.2% against a 4.01% gain in the ASX 200. Diversification away from Australian shares helped this year. OTOH the MSCI gained 4.71% in USD terms, while we lost 0.11% in USD terms overall.