Super who thinks they'll get it?

[sash]

My super = my travel fund in retirement....

I only have a piddly amount...about 200k....however...I am starting to pay attention to it...if I can get it to 500-600k in the next 10 years...I would be a happy chappie.

In my experience the GFC really knocked the sails out of super for most people. Mine went backwards by about 13% but no where near what other people experienced because I had most of it in an Industry Super fund.

 

[jaycee]

My super = my travel fund in retirement....

I only have a piddly amount...about 200k....however...I am starting to pay attention to it...if I can get it to 500-600k in the next 10 years...I would be a happy chappie.

In my experience the GFC really knocked the sails out of super for most people. Mine went backwards by about 13% but no where near what other people experienced because I had most of it in an Industry Super fund.

Good way to think about it maybe ! My supers's worth roughly a bit more than that in the defined benefit scheme I am in. My wage hasn't actually moved upawards very much for a while... I might have to think of what to do about this... Unfortunately for me $200k+ is not a piddly amount compared to the rest of my assets

 

[weg]

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.

What I was wondering when I posted before was whether everyone with a home pays a bond, because what would REALLY annoy me would be if those with one house or a modest house paid little or no bond while someone with more assets paid a full bond.

My understanding, and i may be wrong, is the really poor only with NO assets paid no bond.

Makes you want to off load a few assets when you get to that age, or arrange for a 'carer' to move in prior to going to a nursing home (they can't ask for a bond then) .

 

[wylie]

Wylie, I wasnt referring to you. The heading of the topic asks who thinks they will get the super, other posters have said there will be none there when you retire.... that's what I was asking about

OK. Sorry if I jumped the gun.

And Weg... I'm not sure of it because my brother did most of the organising for my dad whilst I was spending all my time with Mum. He would know more, and I'm happy to ask him and report back when I get a chance.

 

[bene313]

My supers's worth roughly a bit more than that in the defined benefit scheme I am in.

Wow, defined benefit. Must be one of the few remaining.

 

[jaycee]

Wow, defined benefit. Must be one of the few remaining.

Started at my place of work in 1994... last year that it was offered

 

[lizzie]

Started at my place of work in 1994... last year that it was offered

hubby started work at his highly unionised place waaaay back in 1978! darn buggers won't allow us to roll his super out into a smsf ... and i believe he is also on a partial define benefits.

but this isn't much chop as it may cease when he dies - and his genetics are not real great (my ancestors live around 20+ years longer than his). will get a clearer picture in 4 years.

 

[Sunfish]

Wow, defined benefit. Must be one of the few remaining.

Are you unaware that ALL pubic servants are on "defined benefits" and that the gubmint rolled the proceeds of the Telstra sale into the totally misnamed "Australia Fund" whose ONLY purpose is to underwrite public servants' pensions?

Nice work if you can get it.

 

[VYBerlinaV8]

Are you unaware that ALL pubic servants are on "defined benefits" and that the gubmint rolled the proceeds of the Telstra sale into the totally misnamed "Australia Fund" whose ONLY purpose is to underwrite public servants' pensions?

Nice work if you can get it.

I don't think that's the case. Public servants used to get that deal many years ago, but people who joined in the last 15 years or so have a much more standard deal.

The Future Fund (www.futurefund.gov.au) was really just an excuse to sock away some extra cash.

 

[Sunfish]

Future Fund, I stand corrected. But one high falutin name sounds much like the next.

Why is it socked away? No-one is allowed to touch it because the PS knows it is their personal guarantee.

 

[VYBerlinaV8]

Future Fund, I stand corrected. But one high falutin name sounds much like the next.

Why is it socked away? No-one is allowed to touch it because the PS knows it is their personal guarantee.

I agree the name isn't important.

I'm fairly sure that most public servants don't get defined benefit, though. There are several different 'super funds' that public servants are invested in. Some of the really old ones )) are still in defined benefit, many have 'no loss guarantees' (although the fund can return zero to make up for this), and many new public servants have super not much different to the average joe. The original scheme was very generous, but it's pretty much all gone except for paying for a few in retirement.

And the Future Fund hasn't been touched. Besides, the promise of the Australian Government is as much guarantee as having the money socked anyway.

 

[perky29]

I dunno about you guys, but I just bought my 2nd property in my smsf. Thanks to a yield of close to 7% and deposit of 30% on the actual loan , i owe less than 140k and will get a rent of around 280pw.
It basically pays for itself. Hopefully it will double in 10 years - so for an outlay of around 70k (with stamps) I MAY end up with 400k . Rough figures I know - but I doubt I could have turned 70k into 400k with shares given my track record

 

[VYBerlinaV8]

I dunno about you guys, but I just bought my 2nd property in my smsf. Thanks to a yield of close to 7% and deposit of 30% on the actual loan , i owe less than 140k and will get a rent of around 280pw.
It basically pays for itself. Hopefully it will double in 10 years - so for an outlay of around 70k (with stamps) I MAY end up with 400k . Rough figures I know - but I doubt I could have turned 70k into 400k with shares given my track record

What about if you bought shares with the same level of gearing? I reckon you could probably get from 70k to 400k in ten years if that were the case.

My solution? Do both.

 

[perky29]

I could do , as I do dabble a bit in shares. But I have found over time I am a lot better investor with houses than shares - so am sticking with something that gives me a lot let stress!

 

[VYBerlinaV8]

I could do , as I do dabble a bit in shares. But I have found over time I am a lot better investor with houses than shares - so am sticking with something that gives me a lot let stress!

Good approach, and the same reason why I choose my own properties, but use managed funds to buy shares.

 

[Sunfish]

I could do , as I do dabble a bit in shares. But I have found over time I am a lot better investor with houses than shares - so am sticking with something that gives me a lot let stress!

I'm starting to think that the two require quite different mind sets. I do far better with shares than property but I'm impatient and not risk averse.