Retirement

<html><body>
ASIC has warned Australian investors considering establishing their own self-managed superannuation fund (SMSF) to be aware of the potential risks and downsides of such a strategy.
They said many Australians set up SMSFs that are inappropriate for their circumstances.
ASIC has identified eight "red flag" situations which, together or in part, would make it extremely unlikely for an investor to gain any advantage from using SMSFs to create and safeguard their intended retirement lifestyle.
Australian Tax Office figures reveal that as at 30 June 2019, there were 599,678 SMSFs in Australia holding nearly $748 billion in assets, making total assets held in SMSFs larger than those in either industry ($719 billion) or retail ($626 billion) funds.
ASIC Commissioner Danielle Press said, "ASIC believes that consumers are all too well aware of the potential benefits that might stem from using a SMSF, but are not equally alive to the considerable risks and responsibilities that come with the deal.
"SMSFs may be an attractive option for investors wanting more control over their superannuation investment strategy, but it requires real skill, care and diligence to manage your own superannuation. SMSFs are not for everyone simply because not everyone can meet the significant time, costs, risks and obligations associated with establishing and running one."
ASIC previously tracked and analysed member experiences in using an SMSF, and whether advice providers were complying with the law when providing personal advice about setting up an SMSF (refer Background). The research identified the "red flag" indicators that suggested when an SMSF may not be appropriate for an investor.
"Our research found that SMSFs are not suitable for members with a low fund balance, particularly where they have limited ability to make future contributions. This is important because consumers starting off with a low balance need to be aware that they may not be in a better financial position in the future by holding an SMSF compared with investing in an APRA-regulated fund," Ms Press said.
ASIC"s research also found that SMSFs are not an appropriate investment option for people who want a simple superannuation solution, particularly if they have a low level of financial literacy or limited time to manage their own financial affairs. On average, SMSF trustees spend more than 100 hours a year managing their SMSF.
"Where people have limited investment decision-making experience or prefer to delegate decision-making to someone else, they should carefully consider if an SMSF is right for them. As the trustees of their own fund, SMSF investors must remember that they are responsible for their fund"s compliance with the law, even if they pay a professional to help," Ms Press said.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

ASIC identify the 8 red flags of SMSF's

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The Productivity Commission’s <a href="https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/current/superannuation/assessment/draft" target="_blank">latest report on superannuation</a> asks whether the current system is working for members – and answers <a href="https://theconversation.com/young-people-not-employers-should-choose-super-fund-productivity-commission-97329" target="_blank">firmly in the negative</a>.
The <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/property-observer" target="_blank">report identifies</a> four factors that can chip away at super fund members’ retirement benefits:
<ul>
<li>fees</li>
<li>rate of return</li>
<li>insurance</li>
<li>holding <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/property-observer" target="_blank">multiple accounts</a>
</li>
</ul>
What is also clear from the evidence laid out in the report that the not-for-profit sector, including industry super funds, generally outperforms the retail sector. Generally they offer lower fees and higher returns, although there are some industry funds that rank among the lowest-performing.
Despite recent reforms such as the 2013 launch of MySuper, the superannuation system is still beset with the same problems of rising fees and patchy performance. And there is still no substitute for just hopping on the internet and proactively checking that your super is in the best possible hands.
The situation is made complex by the highly segmented nature of Australia’s superannuation system. Besides the public sector funds, the most significant sectors are the retail sector and the not-for-profit funds, including industry funds (see figure 1.5 <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/property-observer" target="_blank">here</a>). These sectors compete for as large a slice as possible of the overall pool.
Self-managed superannuation funds are also a rapidly growing sector of the market, however the regulatory framework applied to these funds has some significant differences to the rest of the market.
Tracking your super
Most employees have the right to choose their superannuation fund (<a href="http://kmo.ministers.treasury.gov.au/speech/008-2018/" target="_blank">although around one million don’t</a>), and if they don’t nominate a fund, employers will pay contributions into a default fund.
As the new report points out (see figure 1.2 <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/property-observer" target="_blank">here</a>), up to 40% of superannuation members hold multiple super accounts. In some cases this may be a deliberate choice – someone with a self-managed super fund may might, for example, choose to have their employer contributions paid into a conventional fund. But often multiple funds are a consequence of employees being enrolled into a new default fund instead of paying contributions into an existing fund.
A range of <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Super/Keeping-track-of-your-super/" target="_blank">tools</a> is now available to help people consolidate their super, so as not to <a href="https://www.moneysmart.gov.au/superannuation-and-retirement/keeping-track-and-lost-super/consolidating-super-funds" target="_blank">lose any of their savings</a>. In the 2018 federal budget the government <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/consultation/c2018-t286292/" target="_blank">announced</a> that it would reduce the paperwork involved in this process by allowing the Australian Taxation Office to consolidate inactive super accounts with balances less than A$6,000.
MySuper
The primary aim of <a href="https://www.moneysmart.gov.au/superannuation-and-retirement/how-super-works/choosing-a-super-fund/mysuper" target="_blank">MySuper</a>, introduced in 2013, was to provide a <a href="https://static.treasury.gov.au/uploads/sites/1/2017/06/R2009-001_Final_Report_Part_2_Chapter_1.pdf" target="_blank">simple default product</a> that meets the needs of members who are not engaged with their superannuation. They have no entry fees, offer simpler insurance and services, and lower administration fees that are charged on a cost-recovery basis.
But although the effects of MySuper are generally positive, the 2013 reforms may also have contributed to the erosion of funds identified by the new review.
This report confirms (see chapter 3, p.127 <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/property-observer" target="_blank">here</a>) that super fund fees in Australia are among the highest in the OECD, and the upward pressure on fees continues. Just this month, the Commonwealth Bank announced that it would <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/money/super-and-retirement/cba-s-superannuation-sting-is-out-and-out-gouge-says-minister-20180523-p4zh23" target="_blank">pass the costs of regulation onto some superannuation products</a>.
One of the consequences of introducing the fee charging limitations for MySuper accounts was that the previous member protection standards that limited fees on low-balance accounts was <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2013C00067" target="_blank">repealed</a>. In the 2018 federal budget the government <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/consultation/c2018-t286292/" target="_blank">announced</a> that fees would be capped in respect of certain low balance accounts.
MySuper products must provide also life insurance on an opt-out basis. Insurance in superannuation has also been under scrutiny, with inappropriate or junk policies being included in superannuation. The government has announced proposals to change this to an <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/consultation/c2018-t286292/" target="_blank">opt-in</a> system.
This report adds to the evidence that overall the current structure of not-for-profit funds is serving members well. Although it supports proposals to require the trustees of industry funds to increase the number of independent directors, the Productivity Commission highlights the need for a stronger focus on trustee skills and addressing conflicts of interest.
Take responsibility for your super
It is concerning that many of the problems identified by the new report are the same ones that arose in the 2014 Financial System Inquiry, the 2015 Cooper Review, and in the evidence to the Financial Services Royal Commission.
Most of these issues raised have been part of the discussion for the past decade. The fact that they are still on the table shows a level of inertia in the system, and a reluctance by the industry to address its problems.
So how can we, as individuals, protect our retirement nest egg? The key is to engage with the superannuation system, and not just as we approach retirement.
Compare your super fund’s fees and returns with those of the best performing funds, and then choose accordingly. Reduce your fees and insurance premiums by consolidating your accounts, and make sure that any insurance in the fund meets your needs.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/97318/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">The difference at retirement is worth it – up to A$407,000 for a 21-year-old by the time they finish their career.
Helen Hodgson, Associate Professor, Curtin Law School and Curtin Business School, Curtin University
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/superannuation-is-still-mired-in-the-same-old-issues-and-no-one-is-going-to-fix-your-nest-egg-but-you-97318">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Superannuation is still mired in the same old issues, and no one is going to fix your nest egg but you

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Australia is ranked in the top third of countries in almost all indices measuring the best countries to retire, according to our analysis of nine separate ageing and retirement indices.
The problem is, experts contriving such indices can’t agree about which ingredients should be included and which are most important.
The flaw of averages
While composite ageing indices provide us with what appear as simple comparisons, the underlying methodologies are complex, prone to judgement, and can be tweaked to obtain certain results.
Using indicators that aggregate outcomes for the older population within a country also ignores differences between people within this population. Sub-indices by gender and more granular age-groups do exist, but one improvement could include an inequality adjustment based on outcomes by socioeconomic status or income.
What about just asking people about their life? Studies that compare differences in people’s own evaluations of life across countries show these are substantially explained by social and economic differences across countries. And when comparing individuals in high-income countries such as Australia and Britain, good physical and mental health appear most correlated with life satisfaction, while in middle-income countries like Indonesia, income is more important.
But that doesn’t differentiate by age. When the OECD asked older people across rich countries what mattered to them, they said that “health” and “environment” were most important while “civic engagement”, “community” and “income” domains were less so. By contrast, younger groups attributed less weight to “environment” and more to “income”.
Such indices usually involve scoring a country in several categories and combining these into a composite score and ranking. Done well, these can reveal how life in one location is better than another and in which categories it is lagging.
So what do existing indices suggest is important for older people’s well-being? And which countries come out on top?
Ingredients for a good old age
The ingredients used in an overall index differ, ranging from the employment rates of older people in each country, to their political participation, income, levels of exercise, and life expectancy.
These indicators and weights are often chosen subjectively by experts constructing each index. Some comparisons focus on current standards of living and comprise social, environmental, health, and economic indicators. These are probably more immediately relevant to people.
By contrast, indices that aim to measure the likely future for older people mostly comprise financial indicators and those that relate to retirement income system design, demography, and economic conditions. These are probably of greater concern for those thinking ahead about the impacts of population ageing.
Where to retire?
Despite the flaws with such comparisons, few people can help themselves. So how does your country rank?
European countries – particularly Nordic ones – are consistently highly ranked across ageing indices (see figure below). Such results reflect their high health outcomes, high incomes, generous social welfare, and comparatively well-designed retirement income systems. These are also countries that top the subjective happiness rankings.
Lower and middle-income countries receive lower rankings from the current well-being indices in which they feature. India and China, where there is low public provision for retirement, occupy high rankings among indices that emphasise fiscal sustainability over the quality of life of older people.
Australia is ranked in the top third of countries in almost all indices. It ranks particularly highly in the Melbourne Mercer Global Pension Index, largely due to the design of its retirement income system.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/91573/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">For what it’s worth, one could take an index of these indices to summarise. Such an index, call it the CEPAR meta-index of ageing, indeed shows Nordic countries taking the top three places, followed by Australia and the US, with the UK coming somewhere in the middle of 25 countries – apparently well ahead of places like France and Italy. Something to ponder when contemplating the good life in old age.
Rafal Chomik, Senior Research Fellow, ARC Centre of Excellence in Population Ageing Research (CEPAR), UNSW
David Rodgers, PhD Student in Economics, UNSW
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-is-one-of-the-worlds-best-places-to-retire-or-is-it-91573" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Is Australia really one of the world's best places to retire? 

<html><body><div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
Woodlea has revealed plans for an innovative aged care and retirement precinct within its growing estate.
Located in Melbourne’s western growth corridor and currently home to 7,000 residents, Woodlea sought to redefine residential living from the outset by creating and raising the bar for a new suburb where families can live a better life. 
The area earmarked for the aged care and retirement precinct is co-located within the new $45 million Woodlea Town Centre development.
It has the potential for over 100 Independent Living Units, Retirement Living Apartments and an Aged Care Facility.
Victoria Investments &amp; Properties (VIP) and ASX listed Mirvac, in collaboration with Knight Frank, is seeking an independent project partner to bring this opportunity to life.
Woodlea Project Director Matthew Dean said this offering would effectively close the loop on ensuring every age and demographic is catered for within the Woodlea community.
“There are aged care and retirement units within the surrounding area but there is nothing of this size or calibre that integrates different living options within the same precinct.
“Woodlea is unlike any other master-planned community due to its sheer size and offering and as it continues to flourish and more amenities are delivered, we are continually looking for ways to innovate to ensure it is responding to the needs of its residents and the surrounding communities,” he said.
Spanning 711 hectares, Woodlea is fast becoming a major asset for the west, comprising prestigious schools, destination style playgrounds, parks and sporting facilities and will be home to a large-scale Town Centre with a 3500sqm Coles.
Upon completion, the master-planned estate is forecast to be home to over 20,000 residents.
It will see over 30 per cent of the estate dedicated to open space - including native woodlands and wetlands and pocket parks. 
In addition, two childcare centres, two public schools and Bacchus Marsh Grammar Primary School, as well as an abundance of sport and recreation facilities will be available.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></body></html>

Woodlea reveals aged care and retirement precinct

<html><body>
Stockland chief executive and managing director Mark Steinert is retiring.
He's leaving the country's largest listed developer after seven and a half years at the helm.
The former UBS analyst has been the company's chief executive since taking over from Matthew Quinn in 2013.
Stockland's chairman Tom Pockett said a "flexible period of transition has been agreed with Mark to provide for a smooth handover."
Pockett said Steinert made a great contribution to Stockland.
"[He] will continue to apply his passion and commitment to the delivery of our strategic priorities and our purpose of creating a better way to live during this transition period", Pockett added.
Steinert said his immediate priority is driving initiatives to take advantage of the COVID-19 recovery period.
</body></html>

jrobinson-rf4aSBido9

Mark Steinert to leave Stockland

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Discussions about Australia’s retirement income system typically begin by reciting the political slogan that there are “three pillars” to the system — the age pension, compulsory super, and voluntary savings.
It was the way the Abbott and Turnbull government’s <a href="https://slideplayer.com/slide/4872297/" target="_blank">tax inquiry</a> looked at retirement incomes, and a frame of reference used by this government’s <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-11/c2019-36292-v2.pdf" target="_blank">retirement income system review</a>.
Missing is discussion of what makes something a “retirement pillar”.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/313028/original/file-20200131-41495-b580y4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip" target="_blank"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/313028/original/file-20200131-41495-b580y4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
<a class="source" href="https://slideplayer.com/slide/4872297/" target="_blank">Treasury tax white paper slideshow, 2015</a>
It’s possible to think of other retirement pillars. Moving to India for a cheap lifestyle would be one.
Requiring retailers to <a href="https://www.fresheconomicthinking.com/2020/01/the-easiest-retirement-system-retiree" target="_blank">provide the elderly free goods and services</a>, with the cost absorbed in the prices paid by others could be another.
To be a pillar, something would have to allocate goods and services in retirement to people who are no longer earning wages.
In my <a href="https://www.fresheconomicthinking.com/p/scrap-superannuation" target="_blank">recently released report</a> I argue that superannuation fails this test.
Super isn’t a retirement pillar
Among other things, super can be spent many years before retirement, beginning anywhere from age <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Super/Self-managed-super-funds/Paying-benefits/Preservation-of-super/" target="_blank">55 to 60</a>, even though the retirement age specified the pension legislation is <a href="https://www.humanservices.gov.au/individuals/services/centrelink/age-pension/who-can-get-it" target="_blank">66 to 67</a>.
Many financial planners advise intending retirees to spend a lot of their super quickly in order to shelter it in income-test-exempt assets <a href="https://www.yourlifechoices.com.au/finance/property/how-upsizing-protects-your-pension" target="_blank">such as housing</a> and qualify for the pension.
The super system also can’t guarantee retirement incomes for people who are self-employed, casually employed, homemakers, have chosen their super fund unwisely or lost the proceeds in things such as online romance scams.
As a system, super comes with unnecessary financial risks, such as suddenly losing 21% of its funds, as happened between September 2007 and March 2009 during the global financial crisis.
It is better thought of as a growth-sapping, resource-wasting, tax-advantaged asset purchase scheme aimed at the already wealthy, which is <a href="https://theconversation.com/myth-busted-boosting-super-would-cost-the-budget-more-than-it-saved-on-age-pensions-119002" target="_blank">unlikely to do much</a> to reduce reliance on the age pension.
We would be better off abandoning it and letting workers spend or save their money as they see fit.
The super system is inefficient
The superannuation system employs <a href="https://www.ibisworld.com.au/industry-trends/market-research-reports/financial-insurance-services/superannuation-funds" target="_blank">55,000 people</a> at a cost of <a href="https://www.selectingsuper.com.au/superannuation-fees-fall-for-the-first-time-in-six-years" target="_blank">A$32 billion</a> per year to produce <a href="https://www.apra.gov.au/quarterly-superannuation-statistics" target="_blank">$40 billion</a> per year in retirement incomes. This is nearly as many people as the enlisted Australian Defence Force (58,000) with a similar total cost ($34 billion).
The rest of Australia’s entire welfare system, including administering the age pension, disability, unemployment benefits and Medicare, costs just $6 billion per year and employs <a href="https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/2018/10/8802-1810-annual-report-web-2017-2018.pdf" target="_blank">33,000 people</a>, while providing <a href="https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/2018/10/8802-1810-annual-report-web-2017-2018.pdf">$45 billion</a> in pension benefits.
It directs money where it isn’t needed...
Each year the superannuation system takes in <a href="https://www.apra.gov.au/quarterly-superannuation-statistics" target="_blank">$117 billion</a> and spits out <a href="https://www.apra.gov.au/sites/default/files/Quarterly%20Superannuation%20Performance%20Statistics%20September%202019_0.pdf" target="_blank">$80 billion</a> in payments (including lump sum withdrawals), leaving $38 billion in asset markets, sapping spending and economic growth. That’s roughly as much as the <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/saving-the-nation-20090203-7wsb" target="_blank">$40 billion</a> stimulus package introduced during the 2009 financial crisis. Unlike it, the super system depresses rather than stimulates the economy.
Unlike the super system, the age pension system is likely to stimulate the economy because it takes purchasing power away from high-income taxpayers with a relatively low likelihood of spending extra dollars to to lower-income pensioners with a high likelihood of spending them.
…and away from those who do need it
Unlike the age pension system, the super system can’t provide poverty relief, or broadly adequate retirement incomes.
For the bottom 40% of earners it does the opposite of smoothing income, making them poorer than they would have been while working, and somewhat <a href="https://theconversation.com/super-shock-more-compulsory-super-would-make-middle-australia-poorer-not-richer-120002">richer</a> than they would have been while on the pension and retired.
The <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/publication/p2020-51153" target="_blank">$18 billion</a> of tax breaks on super fund contributions and <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/publication/p2020-51153" target="_blank">$20 billion</a> of tax breaks on super fund earnings are predominately directed to <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/programs-and-initiatives-superannuation/distributional-analysis-of-superannuation-taxation-concessions" target="_blank">high income earners</a>.
In a comprehensive study released this week the Grattan Institute has demolished the claim that super contributions come out of employers pockets. Instead it finds that, on average, <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/no-free-lunch/" target="_blank">80%</a> of each super contribution comes out of what would have been wages.
Here’s how to escape it
Scrapping the system altogether would massively improve Australia’s economic performance, including the performance of our only true retirement income system, which is the age pension.
It can be done by forcing employers to pay what are now super contributions directly into wage accounts and allowing super fund holders to withdraw up to a maximum amount each year during a transition period, after which all super balances would receive no special tax treatment.
The tens of billions saved in the budget could be used to enhance the size and scope of the age pension. It could incorporate <a href="https://theconversation.com/fall-in-ageing-australians-home-ownership-rates-looms-as-seismic-shock-for-housing-policy-120651" target="_blank">appropriate rent assistance</a> and begin at age 60 instead of 67.
It’s possible. Certainly, there would be job losses, but in other industries we have come to accept that there is no point in continuing to pay people to do things that aren’t needed, and especially no point in making those payments compulsory.
It’d be one of the best things we could do to enhance the working of our economy.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/130191/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/cameron-murray-172480" target="_blank">Cameron Murray</a>, Research Fellow - Henry Halloran Trust, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sydney-841" target="_blank">University of Sydney</a>
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/superannuation-isnt-a-retirement-income-system-we-should-scrap-it-130191" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Superannuation isn't a retirement income system, we should scrap it: Cameron Murray

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
When it comes to their golden years, there are three essential factors retirees should take into account when choosing property.
Lifestyle, relative affordability and building equity should all be considered by those leaving the workforce behind for the easy life.
Our analysis has identified 10 suburbs which offer a combination of all three.
Lifestyle varies from person to person. Some are looking for a seachange, others a treechange and there are many who want to be within easy distance of family.
When it comes to ‘relative affordability’, that too can depend on the individual purchaser. For example, Bryon Bay is relatively affordable for a well-off downsizer from Sydney and Melbourne, but not necessarily for those moving from other areas.
There has certainly been an increase in the number of residents leaving Sydney for other destinations, with the latest ABS figures showing 27,300 people left the Greater Sydney area through 2017-18.
And, of course, building wealth or equity over time is just as important as the two other factors. In other words, they offer good lifestyle options, value for money and solid long-term capital growth projections.
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2019/11/27/Top%20suburbs%20for%20Retirees.jpg" alt="">
We have identified three suburbs in Queensland, five in NSW, one in Victoria and one in Tasmania. There is no particular order, as each retiree must make their own decisions based on personal preference and budget. However, it should be noted, that this list relates only to houses, and not units.
Despite the recent downturn in the property market, these areas had either shown resilience or had already experienced good recovery and that strong long-term projections were “very clear”. And, in fact, some of these areas now presented even better opportunities thanks to the recent price reductions.
For example, the Mornington Peninsula, which has a median price of $691,200, experienced a price reduction of 10.2% in the past 12 months. This is compared to Greater Melbourne which delivered a price reduction of 11% in the past 12 months. Now, with the strong recovery of the market, the increasingly popular area of the Mornington Peninsula is able to provide good buying opportunities.
These areas will most likely reach a new peak or price level in about 12 months and will have fully recovered from the downturn.
Top places to retire for lifestyle, relative affordability and capital gains:
<ul>
<li>1) Sunshine Coast, QLD</li>
</ul>
Both Peregian and Coolum beaches are based in this popular retiree area, drawn by its year-round idyllic climate, beautiful sandy beaches and lush hinterland subtropical forests. The region is only 100 kilometres from Brisbane, meaning they can enjoy the quiet life while still being only an hour’s drive from the hustle and bustle of a big city and all it has to offer. The Sunshine Coast offers a variety of housing styles and price ranges from the multimillion-dollar mansions to two-bedroom cottages depending on budget.
<ul>
<li>2) Gold Coast, QLD</li>
</ul>
Miami on the Gold Coast has a median price of $722,570 which makes it relatively affordable for those migrating from higher priced areas such as Sydney or Melbourne. The Gold Coast is popular with retirees thanks to its beautiful beachside and waterside suburbs, unrivalled lifestyle and good infrastructure. An hour’s drive from the state capital Brisbane, Australia’s sixth largest city is appealing to active mature-aged people, who can enjoy walking on the beach or in the bush, fishing, boating and cultural pursuits with an appealing climate year-round.
<ul>
<li>3) Central Coast, NSW</li>
</ul>
North Avoca, Terrigal and Wamberal on the Central Coast all offer superb lifestyle properties significantly more affordable than the beachside suburbs of Sydney and which still offer reasonable access to NSW’s capital. The area is popular with retirees and is characterised by rugged coastlines, sandy beaches, national parks, bays, inlets, waterfalls and lakes.
<ul>
<li>4) Mornington Peninsula, VIC</li>
</ul>
The suburb, Mornington, is one of the most popular on the Mornington Peninsula and is about 80 kilometres southeast of Melbourne. It is a popular tourist and retiree destination thanks to its numerous attractions which include beaches, wineries, national parks, heritage sites and a plethora of golf courses.
<ul>
<li>5) Byron Bay, NSW</li>
</ul>
This popular suburb is part of the northern region of NSW which is often referred to as ‘the Grey Coast’. Of all the suburbs on the Top 10 list, Byron Bay received the highest capital gains over the past five years of 83.1%. While its median house price was also the highest at $1.5 million, compared to Sydney and Melbourne prices, this is relatively affordable for those moving from these capital cities.
<ul>
<li>6) Hobart, TAS</li>
</ul>
Thanks to its greater affordability when compared to Melbourne, Hobart has increasingly become a popular destination for retirees despite its colder climate. Originally a penal colony founded in 1804, the city is steeped in history and heritage. It is also a major drawcard for boaties, given its harbour is the second-deepest natural port in the world. The city is known for its arts and culture, its majestic scenery such as Mt Wellington, picturesque waterways including the Derwent River and rich café and restaurant scene.
<ul>
<li>7) Hunter Valley, NSW</li>
</ul>
Louth Park in the Hunter Valley is about 120 kilometres north of Sydney. The region is one of Australia's major wine growing areas and is an attractive destination for retirees who enjoy its relative proximity to NSW’s capital city. As a popular tourist area, regular events and festivals are held throughout the Hunter Valley each year while World Heritage-listed parks provide tranquil areas to take in nature.
DORON PELEG is the CEO of RiskWise.
</body></html>

The top 10 suburbs to retire and build equity: RiskWise's Doron Peleg

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Asked to conduct an independent review of Australia’s retirement income system, the panel appointed by treasurer Josh Frydenberg reported on Friday that it was all tied up with the family home.
At every age range, Australians have more money saved through home ownership than they do through superannuation or anything else, much more:
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/303077/original/file-20191122-113002-271u7h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/303077/original/file-20191122-113002-271u7h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
<a class="source" href="https://www.treasury.gov.au/consultation/c2019-36292" target="_blank">Retirement Income Review consultation paper, November 22, 2019</a>.
The report is a <a href="https://www.treasury.gov.au/consultation/c2019-36292" target="_blank">consultation paper</a>. The panel wants submissions by February 3.
It raises questions about how retirees without mortgage-free homes cope. The proportion is growing.
In part that’s because prices have skyrocketed. Over the past 20 years home prices have grown at about twice the pace of income.
That is in part because of the growth in migration. About 3.7 million migrants have settled in Australia in the past two decades creating new demand for housing.
It is also because of the growth in credit, much of which went to Australians who already had homes rather than those who didn’t yet have them.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/303101/original/file-20191122-74580-166ddf7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/303101/original/file-20191122-74580-166ddf7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
And it is also because housing supply has been slow to respond.
But the complex dynamics of high house prices don’t tell the full story.
A wide-ranging review of home ownership just published by the <a href="http://www.cepar.edu.au/news-events/news/housing-ageing-demographic" target="_blank">ARC Centre of Excellence in Population Ageing Research</a> finds something else at play.
It’s the expansion of our lives.
Living longer, waiting longer
The typical age of a first home-buyer began climbing at the start of the 1980s, after dipping in the 1960s and 1970s as home ownership became widespread.
Between 1981 and 2016 the typical age increased by nine years from age 24 to age 33 at around the peak of the house price boom.
It was accompanied by a deferral in almost every other important life event:
Median age of major lifetime events 1966 - 2016
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/302793/original/file-20191120-496-nobcch.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/302793/original/file-20191120-496-nobcch.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
<a class="source" href="http://www.cepar.edu.au/news-events/news/housing-ageing-demographic" target="_blank">Source: CEPAR Research Brief ’Housing in an Ageing Australia: Nest and nest egg?’</a>
In part this might be because the canvas of our lives has grown. The median age at death has grown by 12 years since the 1960s, from age 70 to 82.
Longer lives have meant longer adolescences and later ages at which we finish studying, find work, and start families.
The typical age of getting a first job is two years later than it was 50 years ago; the typical age of finishing education is five years later, the typical age of having a child is seven years later, and the typical age of getting married is eight years later.
At the same time the typical age of leaving the labour force is only four years later: it has climbed from 61 to 64. It’ll probably have to grow further, because mortgages aren’t typically paid off until age 62, ten years later than in the 1960s.
Delay is the new normal
Australia is not unusual in leaving things til later, even though house prices here have grown more than in most other countries.
There’s something more universal at play. Younger age groups may prefer the flexibility that renting offers. Longer lives mean they have more time to buy their homes. Even the nine year deferral in home purchase we have had so far should still see today’s young generations enjoying home ownership for longer than their parents.
Of course, many will choose not to buy. An increasing minority of mostly low income Australians look like being locked out of the market forever, and many who own homes will surrender them as a result of relationship breakups or other life events.
Some will regain them. Others will retire with mortgage debt: 36% of homeowners do so now, up from 23% ten years ago. Many will use super to pay off debt instead of using it to fund retirement.
Our retirement income system is little help
The odd thing about the pension is that the payment is the same for both owners and renters. In fact, over <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/elderly-in-1mplus-homes-raking-in-63bn-in-pensions/news-story/30cbe2423577d46f5489ec39b673f8f4" target="_blank">A$6 billion</a> of age pension payments go to people living in houses worth more than a million dollars.
Renters receive rental assistance but it is pegged to the wrong index, so it has grown more slowly than rents.
The oft-quoted <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/onethird-of-australian-pensioners-live-in-poverty-oecd-report-20160107-gm0uno" target="_blank">statistic</a>, that old-age poverty in Australia is high, is wrong.
But our analysis, which takes account of housing, suggests that old age Australian renters do indeed have some of the worst relative poverty rates in the OECD.
Relative old age poverty rate of renters
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/302796/original/file-20191120-496-1yvp4ii.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/302796/original/file-20191120-496-1yvp4ii.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
<a class="source" href="http://www.cepar.edu.au/news-events/news/housing-ageing-demographic" target="_blank">Source: CEPAR Research Brief ’Housing in an Ageing Australia: Nest and nest egg?’</a>
Older renters have greater housing affordability stress than both older home owners and younger renters.
About 37% of renters aged 64-74 have both a low income and pay more than a third of it in rent, up from 21% in 1996.
While increases in homelessness among older women appear to be largely due to greater population numbers, their increased use of homelessness services is disproportionate.
The population of women aged 55+ increased by about 3% per year between 2011 and 2016. Their use of homelessness services increased 11% per year.
Even if the typical Australian continues to become a homeowner by retirement, a growing minority will not, and will be treated poorly by our retirement income system.
The government’s <a href="https://www.treasury.gov.au/consultation/c2019-36292" target="_blank">review of the retirement income system</a> is an opportunity to redress the balance.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/127231/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Rafal Chomik, Senior Research Fellow, ARC Centre of Excellence in Population Ageing Research (CEPAR), UNSW.
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/were-delaying-major-life-events-and-our-retirement-income-system-hasnt-caught-up-127231" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

We’re delaying major life events, and our retirement income system hasn’t caught up

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Soon after the election Treasurer Frydenberg flagged there would be an inquiry into retirement incomes. Since then, no details have emerged.
But there is gossip around Canberra there might be some action in the next couple of weeks on a review that would report before the end of 2020.
This issue, with compulsory superannuation its pointy end, and that of industrial relations, on which minister Christian Porter is doing a stocktake, have common threads in political terms.
They will test the clout of powerful interests outside the parliament, and of backbench activists within the Coalition. Meaning, they will test the Prime Minister.
In another life, Peter Collins was a NSW Liberal treasurer and opposition leader. These days, he’s deputy chair of Industry Super Australia, which he previously chaired for six years.
Collins told a Rice Warner summit on superannuation in Canberra on Monday that Scott Morrison had the opportunity to “reset the relationship” with industry and public sector superannuation funds, after the negativity of the Turnbull government - which was preoccupied with trying to curb union power in the industry funds. (It was less than pleased when the industry funds emerged from a Productivity Commission inquiry a good deal shinier than the retail funds.)
Collins also recounted how a few weeks ago, US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross had invited IFM Investors, the infrastructure investment vehicle for many industry funds (and overseas pension funds of a similar nature), to join the US Investment Advisory Council. This is described as “established by the Secretary of Commerce to solicit private sector advice on the promotion and retention of foreign direct investment” to the US.
It seemed the US administration had a rather more positive attitude to industry and public sector funds than the Coalition government.
Collins also points to the scope, under a “reset relationship” for these funds to do more on the infrastructure front in Australia. “There is no other pot of gold” for infrastructure, he says.
Not surprisingly, these funds are hanging out for the terms of reference for the retirement inquiry, in particular how they impact on the legislated rise due to start from mid-2021, to take the superannuation guarantee gradually from the current 9.5% to 12% by 2025.
The Productivity Commission saw the need for “an independent public inquiry into the role of compulsory superannuation in the broader retirement incomes system”. Others question the case for an inquiry when the various policy settings appear to be in place.
The PC has reported on necessary administrative reforms. Changes have already been made to the tax treatment of superannuation. Overhaul of the aged pension system doesn’t seem on the radar.
And, crucially, the rise in the super guarantee is baked into law - and, Morrison says, into Coalition policy.
But some are suspicious (and others hopeful) the retirement inquiry could pave the way for the government to seek to defer the July 2021 rise, and then put to the 2022 election the proposition that workers should be able to get the money through wage increases rather than having it locked away.
This would also set up a convenient issue for wedging Labor, which would be committed to the guarantee increasing. It’s easy to see the line – it could be portrayed as another case of the ALP wanting to “increase taxes” rather than giving employees their money.
If it all sounds too Machiavellian, it is worth remembering the Coalition has form on the issue.
The Howard government proposed workers should be able to “opt out” of the compulsory scheme and receive wage increases instead, although this didn’t go ahead. The Abbott government deferred rises until 2021.
New Liberal senator Andrew Bragg, who addressed Monday’s conference (although he avoided the guarantee issue for political reasons) is one of a number of Coalition backbenchers who oppose the rise to 12%. They are looking to the inquiry to leverage change.
They have an ally in the Grattan Institute, which argues the increase to 12% should be abandoned, maintaining “it would effectively compel most people to save for a higher living standard in retirement than they enjoy during their working lives”.
The temptation for scrapping the rise, or having some “opt out” system, becomes stronger when wages are flat – a problem reinforced by the latest figures this week.
But there is a strong counter case that such a course would be bad in practical and policy terms.
There’s no certainty workers would actually get the extra money, or all of it, in wage increases. Attempting to compel that would be complex and fraught.
More importantly, failure to strengthen further the compulsory system would disadvantage many individual retirees in the future and be an added burden on a later generation of taxpayers, as more people would be pushed onto full aged pensions.
While many Liberals don’t like the compulsory aspect of the super guarantee, it’s the history of the scheme (one of Paul Keating’s legacies) and most particularly the unions’ role - and the flow-on power that gives unions - that really rile them.
One would think, however, that much about compulsory superannuation fits with Liberal philosophy, which emphasises self reliance.
Admittedly the argument for workers having immediate access to their money, at a time of life when they face their most severe cost-of-living pressures, is seductive. But it short term thinking, from the points of view of both individuals and governments.
Much of the debate is being conducted around modelling, stretching out decades, calculating the competing financial implications for low income workers. But modelling, with its assumptions, carries a degree of false precision. It also represents one-dimensional thinking.
People on low incomes are naturally going to spend any extra money rather than save it. Yet for these people savings are what they need for the long term. This applies especially for women, for whom more, not fewer, ways should be found to augment their superannuation.
Forced saving might be unpleasant in the moment, but valued at the time of a more comfortable and secure retirement. Promises of the money being used for wage increases carry political appeal for a government now, but future governments would benefit if the aged pension burden is contained by a healthily growing compulsory super scheme.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/121956/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra.
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-how-guaranteed-is-a-rise-in-the-superannuation-guarantee-121956" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Retirement

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Retirement

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News