Drawing down or draining the well?

4 min read
4 min read

It is often asserted that Australians are too conservative in retirement, not spending as much as they could and still having substantial retirement savings when they die.

While there may be an element of truth in such assertions, at least for some retirees, it is likely that things are a bit more complex. However, I have faith in the ability of many Australians, including retirees, to make decisions that are more or less in their best interest.

The evidence on underspending is a bit patchy, relying mostly on Age Pension data, SMSF administrator records and longitudinal data from a few funds. Longitudinal records of retiree asset holdings are hard to come by. Adjusting for purchasing power changes over long periods also complicates matters.

Cross sectional data suggests that many older people reduce their superannuation balance to nil over time. ABS data for 2017-18 indicates that 62 per cent of males and 51 per cent of females aged between 65 and 74 had superannuation but these dropped to 34 per cent and 26 per cent respectively for those aged 75 and over. The figures for those aged 75 and over are also well down on the coverage figures 10 years earlier for those aged 65 to 74 of 48 per cent for males and 37 per cent for females.

Superannuation balances for those aged 75+ tend not to be large, with the median in 2017-18 for males $208,000 and for females $126,100.

Superannuation is typically one of the only financial assets held by an individual or couple, albeit the most substantial asset apart from the family home in most cases. Given that superannuation is tax advantaged and that additional contributions can be hard or impossible to make after retirement, it is not surprising that a retiree might choose to run down other assets before their superannuation balance. Especially when a balanced super fund is delivering higher returns than any term deposit.

Even if retirees underspend on an objective basis, policy levers to encourage greater spending are not easy to develop. There are even some who would move policy settings in the opposite direction.

However, while many SMSF members would like there to be no minimum drawdown factor, that is not a realistic policy setting. Minimum drawdown factors for account-based pensions are basically a mechanism for controlling the amount of tax concessions delivered during the retirement phase. A retiree does not actually have to spend the money they draw down, it can be put into a bank account or otherwise invested. The same applies to income received from a term or life annuity.

There are also other factors at work. While life annuities and other longevity products allow individuals to insure themselves against the financial consequences of longevity (as a sort of reverse life insurance policy) not everything can be insured against.

Many people worry about aged care and need to provide a decent size accommodation bond to avoid unduly nasty residential aged care accommodation. Other risks are out of pocket medical expenses, the need for major home repairs, replacement of a car or substantial repair costs.

As an owner of a 1930s house, I have concerns about potential repair costs. A recent plumber’s visit to clear a sewer pipe (which had become a tree irrigation system) resulted in a pipe relining quote that equated the plumber’s hourly rate to that of a general surgeon.

Many individuals also want to self-insure against the possibility of poor investment returns. Recent equity returns have been at historically high levels. This has both boosted superannuation balances of retirees above what they reasonably expected they would be, while at the same time heightening concerns about the next part of the financial cycle involving lower returns.

Going forward the availability of financial products which give retirees the ability to be more confident that they will not outlive their retirement savings will help boost spending in retirement. However, “underspending” might be more a consumer behaviour issue than a product problem.

Generally available good financial advice along with easy to use calculators might help retirees better work out what they can safely spend in retirement, which in many cases may be more than they spend now.

Attitudes to passing on an inheritance might be a bit more difficult to change. Having kids may not make sense financially but many people do become parents, often assisting their children during their lifetime and providing a bequest in their will. That said, spending your children’s inheritance now is not without its attractions, but cultural and family norms may need to change for this to happen more.

Picture of By Ross Clare

By Ross Clare

director of research

More Reading

Q&A with IFM Investors’ David Whiteley
In-Depth In-Depth

Q&A with IFM Investors’ David Whiteley

Super system can turbocharge productivity on road to net zero
In-Depth In-Depth

Super system can turbocharge productivity on road to net zero

Understanding the Division 296 super tax
In-Depth In-Depth

Understanding the Division 296 super tax

Carmen Beverley-Smith

Executive Director - Superannuation, Life & Private Health Insurance, APRA

Sessions

Keynote 8 – Navigating the energy transition: opportunities, investor strategies and policy needs

Carmen joined APRA in March 2023 and holds the role of Executive Director, Life and Private Health Insurance and Superannuation.  

She has had an esteemed career in financial services, spanning over 25 years. She has held diverse leadership roles at Westpac and Commonwealth Bank of Australia, including across risk, transformation and change, product and portfolio development, and sales and service. 

Prior to joining APRA, she held the role of General Manager, Risk Transformation Delivery Integration at Westpac. This involved leading the group-wide implementation of a suite of solutions to uplift risk management capability and develop data, analytics and reporting. 

Carmen leads with a values-driven approach and a particular interest in developing and mentoring talent. 

She holds a Bachelor of Commerce and Accounting, is a certified Chartered Accountant and a Graduate of the Australian Institute of Company Directors. 

Amy C. Edmondson

Novartis Professor of Leadership and Management, Harvard Business School

Sessions

Keynote 8 – Navigating the energy transition: opportunities, investor strategies and policy needs

Amy C. Edmondson is the Novartis Professor of Leadership and Management at the Harvard Business School, a chair established to support the study of human interactions that lead to the creation of successful enterprises that contribute to the betterment of society.

Edmondson has been recognized by the biannual Thinkers50 global ranking of management thinkers since 2011, and most recently was ranked #1 in 2021 and 2023; she also received that organization’s Breakthrough Idea Award in 2019, and Talent Award in 2017.  She studies teaming, psychological safety, and organisational learning, and her articles have been published in numerous academic and management outlets, including Administrative Science Quarterly, Academy of Management Journal, Harvard Business Review and California Management Review. Her 2019 book, The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation and Growth (Wiley), has been translated into 15 languages. Her prior books – Teaming: How organizations learn, innovate and compete in the knowledge economy (Jossey-Bass, 2012), Teaming to Innovate (Jossey-Bass, 2013) and Extreme Teaming (Emerald, 2017) – explore teamwork in dynamic organisational environments. In Building the future: Big teaming for audacious innovation (Berrett-Koehler, 2016), she examines the challenges and opportunities of teaming across industries to build smart cities. 

Edmondson’s latest book, Right Kind of Wrong (Atria), builds on her prior work on psychological safety and teaming to provide a framework for thinking about, discussing, and practicing the science of failing well. First published in the US and the UK in September, 2023, the book is due to be translated into 24 additional languages, and was selected for the Financial Times and Schroders Best Business Book of the Year award.

Before her academic career, she was Director of Research at Pecos River Learning Centers, where she worked on transformational change in large companies. In the early 1980s, she worked as Chief Engineer for architect/inventor Buckminster Fuller, and her book A Fuller Explanation: The Synergetic Geometry of R. Buckminster Fuller (Birkauser Boston, 1987) clarifies Fuller’s mathematical contributions for a non-technical audience. Edmondson received her PhD in organisational behavior, AM in psychology, and AB in engineering and design from Harvard University.

 

Daniel Mulino MP

Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services

Sessions

Keynote 8 – Navigating the energy transition: opportunities, investor strategies and policy needs

Born in Brindisi, Italy, Daniel was a young child when he moved with his family to Australia. He grew up in Canberra and completed his first degrees – arts and law – at the ANU. He then completed a Master of Economics (University of Sydney) and a PhD in economics from Yale.

He lectured at Monash University, was an economic adviser in the Gillard government and was a Victorian MP from 2014 to 2018. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer of Victoria, Daniel helped deliver major infrastructure projects and developed innovative financing structures for community projects.

In 2018 he was preselected for the new federal seat of Fraser and became its first MP at the 2019 election, re-elected in 2022 and 2025. From 2022 to 2025, Daniel was chair of the House of Representatives’ Standing Economics Committee in which he chaired inquiries; economic dynamism, competition and business formation and insurers’ responses to 2022 major floods claims.

In 2025, he became the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services.

In August 2022, Daniel published ‘Safety Net: The Future of Welfare in Australia’, which aims to explore the ways in which an insurance approach can improve the effectiveness of government service delivery.