You could do a lot worse than having precious metals in your SMSF.
But now I'll be accused of ramping again.
Super who thinks they'll get it?
- Thread starter FormerLurker
- Start date
But now I'll be accused of ramping again.
I am saying that superannuation represents an effective way for most people to achieve some form of financial wealth egg upon retirement.
Ocean Architect is going on a verbal d&g that superannuation is effectively useless:
http://www.somersoft.com/forums/showpost.php?p=799823&postcount=66
http://www.somersoft.com/forums/showpost.php?p=799829&postcount=68
And these statements are just complete hogwash.
Superannuation is a very long term wealth creation strategy. There will be periods when the underlying assets in the account achieve good returns, and periods when the assets achieve poor returns.
Regular contributions by the member allow an effective form of dollar averaging which will 'smooth' the long term performance of the underlying assets.
The main risk to superannuation holders is when they are nearing retirement. As they are nearing retirement they should be increasing the conservativeness of their superannuation settings to protect their nest egg.
who cares, regular contributions 'buy' more when stocks are lower. One day the stock market will enter another bull market and those contributions at lower asset class prices will receive a very good return.
Superannuation involves a 'life span' of 30 odd years, there will be several periods when shares are 'ravaged', there will be several periods when shares go balastic and there will be several periods when shares just go nowhere.
You could do a lot worse than having precious metals in your SMSF.
But now I'll be accused of ramping again.
already have silver and gold and about to buy more.
i know where your'e coming from, but we've been nearly 2 years of sideways after serious losses and a reasonable recovery.
my worry is that my timing to access my super - will it fall in the middle of a bull or bear market?
there's no way to predict this. hwo do you know that this last bull run isn;t th eend of it fo rth enext 5 years? do you sell or wait?
decisions i plan on NOT having to make when i'm 85.
This is also an issue for me/us. But luckily we have planned our run down into retirement (52 and 51 now) to NOT have to cash in at any particular time. I would be more worried if hubby and I had to keep working for longer than we wished to due to the timing being bad.
I believe there are lots of people working past the time they planned of hanging up their work clothes for good due to the GFC and poor superannuation fund performance.
In fact, for the first time in 19 years I am working as a casual a few days a week, and enjoying it, and hubby is back working on a contract. He planned on working for three months, but seven months later is still there. He likes his boss and is planning on possibly working two or three days a week once we have our trip away.
It is very nice to choose to work rather than be forced to work.
Yes I was agreeing with you when I wrote that.. .Waht I was questioning was what Bayview & OA were saying about all the money going missing when you go to claim it casue the governemtn invested it badly (perghaps it was bayviewe who said this)... I dont see how that works when as I said, super congtributions are emplooyee & emplouyer, not government... and syuperannuation funds are not the government.. where doe s the governemtn get to fk up the investing when they are not doing it ?
This type of quetsion / concern, I can understand
we did "get" that ... which is great for you, us and anyone else with investment nouse ... the problem is that for the other 95% of the working population it isn't the gravy - it is everything and only thing they will get for their retirement.
Agree. But don't forget that when we get to the nursing home (IF we get to the nursing home) we will be the ones paying half a million (today's dollars) to get in and $750 a week for the same care that the other 95% of the population get for next to nothing.
So much for planning ahead, doing without and looking after ourselves
Can't anyone work this out themselves , especially investors ? I'm just confused as to who are people trying to educate by telling US that super is not miraculous ?
Agree. But don't forget that when we get to the nursing home (IF we get to the nursing home) we will be the ones paying half a million (today's dollars) to get in and $750 a week for the same care that the other 95% of the population get for next to nothing.
So much for planning ahead, doing without and looking after ourselves
Again, I am unsure how this is the fault of the superannuation system existing in its current or any other form ?
Agree. But don't forget that when we get to the nursing home (IF we get to the nursing home) we will be the ones paying half a million (today's dollars) to get in and $750 a week for the same care that the other 95% of the population get for next to nothing.
So much for planning ahead, doing without and looking after ourselves
I thought nursing homes charge every person owning a home a bond, not some, or is this means tested now?
Also my understanding is the bond goes back to the estate when the person dies as it's the interest on the amount that is the real charge (hence why an elderly person can rent their PPOR instead of selling it and paying this to the NH).
The big p***** is if they know you own a lot the more some tend to charge.
Agree. But don't forget that when we get to the nursing home (IF we get to the nursing home) we will be the ones paying half a million (today's dollars) to get in and $750 a week for the same care that the other 95% of the population get for next to nothing.
So much for planning ahead, doing without and looking after ourselves
ah - by the time you and i need a home (hoping for at least another 40 years before then), it might be veeeeery interesting as to the quality of home and care one with money gets into versus the poor.
if the government is going to massively struggle to pay basic pensions, i wouldn't want to be reliant on them to also pay my nursing home and health care.
You're missing the fact that most people use the GROSS super value for retirement planning calculations...
Yes, most of us here realise the difference between Gross & Net, but all the super advertising I've ever seen fails to clearly articulate exactly what your super figure is.... Just like the guy at the BBQ who likes to proudly proclaim his six figure $100k income, yet he only takes home $75k.... It is a false economy with many people not realising their folly until they start realising their money is running out...
If my argument is hogwash, please tell me why - in as much detail as you care to put down. My argument is accurate when compared to several major economies presently, as well as some in the past - the US in the 30s, the Irish and Greeks presently etc - if I'm full of it, please enlighten me. In detail.
Oh, I don't know. A former colonial power that happens to lead our country facing the same sorts of issues that we do with a similar sort of social, tax, and health structure finding itself pretty much bankrupt with citizens freezing to death in their own homes for lack of money to pay the bull...I guess it has nothing to do with the patterns happening in our country after all. Maybe I'll just wait for things to happen before exercising 20 20 hindsight instead of using my brain here and now. Makes sense. For a lemming.
Maybe because they're both a form of government mandated post retirement care?
Blah blah blah reality reality dont want to hear it dont want to hear it please please my house is going to double in value every 7 years forever, I'm rich, I swear, please belieeeeeve meeeeee
I don't think I actually said this is the fault of the superannuation system???
The bond does go back to the estate, after they take money out for five years. When my father passes away we will get back about $470K (cannot remember exactly). That could be in five or ten years' time and it will not increase.
It is also my understanding that a certain number of people without assets that must be taken into even the "expensive" homes. My understanding is that there could be two rooms side by side. One is a "rich" person who has paid $500K bond and is paying the maximum daily of about $750 (or thereabouts) whilst the other person has not paid a bond and gives over 80% or so of their pension for the same care.
It just isn't fair, and once again, the rich are propping up those who cannot fund their own entry to such a place.
I know this is something that really used to annoy my mother. They worked their butts off to set themselves up for a comfortable retirement, and in so doing, meant they missed out on so many perks that the government handed out to those who couldn't or wouldn't plan and save for retirement.
Why dont people take some respossibility and control their own super instead of blaming government and fund managers. If you dont instruct your fund manager what to do, how do they know what you want, if they wont do what you want change, to some-one who will. Most people will insure less valuable assets such as house
or car, but wont insure their super against a fall. You can protect your supper by buying put options.
