Superannuation Discussion + market volatility

[Pushka]

All this complexity is amazing
Iirc ( it was aeons ago) all our super contributions ( to our smsf ) came from pre tax company profits and were therefore tax free. The eventual pension receipt is tax free as well as all the capital gains and earnings
It has been an amazing ride and i am fairly sanguine about the fiscal fiend getting a bit back so late in the game

Posted courtesy of airnz wifi

Even though an SMSF there were still the usual taxes listed above that had to be paid. You likely just didn't see them.

 

[tgh]

You are correct pushka , time dims my memory swmbo advises that the company paid 15% tax on the contributions which were some years quite substantial . We could have taken the profits personally, paid top marginal rates and bought a mercedes . As youngsters setting out we were well advised and listened to it.

 

[OZDUCK]

I am one of the, self acknowledged, very fortunate people who were able to make very good use of the 54/11 option. Fifteen very happy years so far. Most of the people of my age group cohort in Customs changed our Super options to the basic 'cash' rate very early on in 2007. We were a large group of people obsessively discussing our Super returns and an early consensus that problems were coming convinced most of us to change our earning option. before the full losses from the GFC materialised. It was surprising and sad to attend CSS/PSS seminars afterwards and hear from a number of people who hadn't realised that the same changes that allowed some years of double digit returns also meant that double digit losses were possible.

 

[CaptJCool]

hear from a number of people who hadn't realised that the same changes that allowed some years of double digit returns also meant that double digit losses were possible.

that's because until around 2000-01, losses were not passed onto members, but they were announced around then that they would.

(I note the income smoothing mentioned sometime earlier, which in effect meant as a member contributor you didn't have the investment risk, until they changed it to pushing the risk to the members)

 

[OZDUCK]

that's because until around 2000-01, losses were not passed onto members, but they were announced around then that they would.

(I note the income smoothing mentioned sometime earlier, which in effect meant as a member contributor you didn't have the investment risk, until they changed it to pushing the risk to the members)

That is true but the changes, which I think happened sometime in the 1990's, had been widely advertised. I thought most members would have been aware that while they offered the chance of better returns they also opened up the possibility of negative outcomes.

 

[CaptJCool]

That is true but the changes, which I think happened sometime in the 1990's, had been widely advertised. I thought most members would have been aware that while they offered the chance of better returns they also opened up the possibility of negative outcomes.

Yea they were well advertised


They did see negative losses in 2002

These snippets

No risk of negative returns

So within 4 years

And removal of complete guaranteed capital But as from 30 June 2003

Resulting in getting slammed in 2008-09

 

[MARTINE]

Yea they were well advertised

View attachment 378859
They did see negative losses in 2002

These snippets
View attachment 378860
No risk of negative returns

So within 4 years
View attachment 378861
And removal of complete guaranteed capital But as from 30 June 2003

Resulting in getting slammed in 2008-09
View attachment 378862

Wow @CaptJCool
Do you have a whole room with library dedicated to superannuation. Impressive

 

[SydneySwan]

They did see negative losses in 2002

Aren't negative losses profits? I remember hearing a US fund manager on the radio once calling a year of losses 'negative profits'.

 

[CaptJCool]

Aren't negative losses profits? I remember hearing a US fund manager on the radio once calling a year of losses 'negative profits'.

Yes
In 2001 and 2002 the profits were 0…

Post automatically merged: Saturday at 5:12 PM

Wow @CaptJCool
Do you have a whole room with library dedicated to superannuation. Impressive

Just kept a few of these statements to track projected results
Boy they were so far off the reality of the final finish - way underestimated

 

[OZDUCK]

Yes
In 2001 and 2002 the profits were 0…

Post automatically merged: Saturday at 5:12 PM

Just kept a few of these statements to track projected results
Boy they were so far off the reality of the final finish - way underestimated

I can remember getting estimates from the CSS on-line calculator in the late 1990's/early 2000's that underestimated my final figures in 2009 by close to 50%. Those years of double digits returns made my retirement pension and lump sum much healthier

 

[MARTINE]

Yes
In 2001 and 2002 the profits were 0…

Post automatically merged: Saturday at 5:12 PM

Just kept a few of these statements to track projected results
Boy they were so far off the reality of the final finish - way underestimated

Always happy I was with PSS — never needed the lump sum and indexed pension for life far more attractive for me