News

NewsThe 3 Biggest Mistakes People Make Saving For Retirement
The 3 Biggest Mistakes People Make Saving For Retirement

The 3 Biggest Mistakes People Make Saving For Retirement

Gary Stone is the author of Blueprint to Wealth: Financial Freedom in 15 Minutes a Week and this week we spoke to Gary on the FiftyUp Club Radio show about the Top 3 Mistakes People Make When Saving For Retirement.

Gary says “saving for retirement is a multi-decade investing venture, even for those approaching retirement. Indeed, actuaries in 2015 stated that there is a 70% chance that one of a 65-year-old couple will reach 90 years old, meaning that even retirement is a multi-decade investing proposition.”

Many in the Fifty Up Club will have children who are still in the early stages of accumulating their retirement nest egg. Bear them in mind when reading this article. According to Gary's book, here are the Top 3 Mistakes People Make....

Mistake 1 – investing in diversified balanced funds over the long term

When starting a new job, employees need to choose where their monthly Superannuation contributions will be invested by their new employer. New employees are typically faced with a confusing list of managed funds from which to select. These new employees of all age groups typically tick a box on a form having spent less time thinking about where to invest their retirement contributions than they would spend choosing a meal off an à la carte menu.

Deciding where and how to invest their retirement savings is the biggest financial decision that individuals will make in the sense that the wrong choice can cost everyday people more in lost savings than any other financial decisions they will ever make.

It is just far too important not to put more effort into their retirement investing decision.

The typical outcome of this poor decision is that 70% to 75% of retirement savers will defer to the social default which is choosing a more cautious balanced or diversified fund of some sort in an industry or retail Super fund. This is a big mistake. Because over-caution equals under-performance over the long term. The younger the new employee the bigger this mistake. Over the long term this mistake will cost the retirement saver multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars in forfeited retirement savings compared to electing to invest their retirement savings in a mainstream stock market index Exchange Traded Fund (ETF).

Mistake 2 – Falling for the fee-loving financial establishment

Workers allow themselves to be fee-fleeced by active fund managers such as industry Super Funds. Fees contribute to the 2.6% p.a. difference referred to in Mistake 1. Industry Super funds’ annual fees are in the order of double to seven times higher than index Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs).

As John Bogle, the founder of Vanguard, so aptly put it, “… the magic of compound returns is overwhelmed by the tyranny of compound costs.”

In the case of People vs fee-loving financial establishment, the people are losing hands down.

Mistake 3 – Succumbing to ongoing hide & seek fees

Mistake number three is paying financial planners and advisers ongoing annual fees as a percentage of funds under management. Adviser fees can range from 0.5% p.a. to 2% p.a. of a client’s funds being managed by the adviser. These fees are in addition to management fees charged by the managed funds in which advisers may invest their clients’ money.

A fee that is calculated as a percentage of a client’s wealth continues to scale higher in absolute terms as the client’s wealth rises in value.

Adviser fees or most of managed Super fund fees¸ potentially costing hundreds of thousands of dollars in forfeited growth over multiple decades, can almost be completely avoided by individuals gaining their own knowledge about index investing themselves using ETFs. Give fees the flick, start your own fee avoidance movement.

Any information contained in this article is of a general nature only, that is it does not take into account your own particular circumstances and needs, either now or in the future. If in doubt about your personal situation or needs you should seek financial advice.

Click through to Gary's website here

Originally posted on .

Join the conversation

FiftyUp Club
The 3 Biggest Mistakes People Make Saving for Retirement

Share your views with other members. 

Want to leave a comment? or .
Read our moderation policy here.
Someone
Someone from VIC commented:

Try to avoid selling investment assets until you are retired. This will result in capital gains tax savings. 

Gary
Gary from VIC commented:

Absolutely. Research by S&P Down Jones indices shows that investing in a mainstream index ETF, reinvesting dividends and franking credits over the long term has an extremely high probability of beating every active managed fund, including all industry & retail Super fund. Following such a strategy and never selling until after you retire will result in no tax; in an SMSF too. I explain this strategy and all the research behind it in my book mentioned in the article. Gary Stone 

Someone
Someone from VIC commented:

Having read Gary's book, I can say that whilst the differences in fees between managed investments and ETF's is one theme, another is the use of a simple timing strategy that will assist in the prevention of big losses...think GFC, dot com, Eurozone crisis of 2011 and whatever significant events lie ahead. Simply being out of the market at the correct times will go along way to outperforming any managed fund. If a managed fund can't outperform the market, why should you pay them a fee? Clearly the choice is yours to make, but surely something all should consider. 

Jeff
Jeff from QLD commented:

Where can I find more information about ETFs, how to choose the best available for investment and are there any self interest groups I can join regarding this investment vehicle? 

Gertraud
Gertraud from ACT replied to Jeff:

ASIC has information about ETFs right there: https://www.moneysmart.gov.au/investing/managed-funds/exchange-traded-funds-etfs 

Gary
Gary from VIC replied to Gertraud:

Jeff, I agree with Gertraud that the MoneySmart web site as provided above is a good place to start. A couple of things that I would like to correct from their website though. 1. Typically ETF annual management fees are lower than their equivalent unlisted index funds. 2. In Australia there is a broker whose brokerage for buying and selling ETFs (and stocks for that matter) is a flat $9.50 regardless of size. In the USA flat rates as low as $4.95 and even zero brokerage for some ETFs are available. Further to the MoneySmart site there is plenty of information on the internet about ETFs. If you stick to mainstream index ETFs such as those for the ASX20, ILC, ASX50, SFY, ASX200, STW, ASX300, VAS, and ASX200 REIT, SLF, then you will be staying away from those that MoneySmart points out on the ASIC website. There are other index ETFs that trade on the ASX for mainstream international indices that are also subject to exchange rate movements such as, S&P500, IVV, S&P400, IHJ, S&P600, IJR for the USA indices and others for Europe and Asia. 

Gary
Gary from VIC commented:

Clair et al, I will gladly explain and answer each person's questions and comments. Thank you for posting them and taking a passionate interest. All I ask is that you have an open and objective mind. Gary Stone 

Someone
Someone from NSW commented:

This obviously is a bias report. As Joseph from NSW said, facts need to be checked and "substantiated" before publishing. Similarly so, with the energy and health fund articles. 

Gary
Gary from VIC commented:

Anon, As per my Reply to Joseph below, what else would you like to be fact checked? 

Gary
Gary from VIC replied to Gary:

Anon, I probably should have answered your question slightly differently. I think that I have provided facts to back up anything that you may have thought needed fact checking and to be substantiated. Is there anything that I missed or that has raised further 'substantiation' questions in your mind? Gary Stone 

joseph
joseph from NSW commented:

Following all these comments re Ind Fund fees maybe this article needs to be edited to read correctly, and in future facts checked before being printed 

Gary
Gary from VIC replied to joseph:

Joseph, Please read all my Replies below and let us what needs to changed in the article or what else need clarification to demonstrate the facts.. 

Don
Don from QLD commented:

I am glad you had your general warning at the end because it sums up the generalisations you have used. There is room for all of the players in this market to meet clients specific goals. You just need to take some responsibility for your own financial affairs and get the right advice. 

Gary
Gary from VIC replied to Don:

Don, It's tough not to generalise when you have 8 mins on radio or 700 odd words for an article. But it's also really great to get all the comments as it gives me the opportunity to be more specific. Taking responsibility and being accountable for YOUR Super outcome is a huge theme of mine writings. So I agree totally. The first step is to "first seek to understand before being understood" (Stephen Covey). And use more than one source (people, books, your own research). Below I have provided specific examples in dollar terms of what small per cent amounts of annualised underperformance adds up to over the long term. So I'll throw in another trait that investors need - big picture PERSEPCTIVE. Spend some time spread sheeting how much 2.6% compounded per annum difference is over 10, 15, 20, 30, 35 years on different starting amounts and you'll be absolutely amazed at the size of the absolute difference. It's 100s of 1000s of $, even over $1,000,000 less over 40 years. Very few people spend the time gaining the perspective of long-term compounding. And then consider that that is the difference between the stock market index returns and the MEDIAN Super fund return. By definition this means that half the Super funds out there, of which total over 300, perform even worse. So now do the calculation of, say 4% compounded p.a. difference over 10, 20, 30 and even 40 & 50 years for those with kids in their 20's just starting out. You see, it really is a lottery as to what Super kitty everyday people will end up with in retirement by ticking a box on a form. Whereas, over the long term there is just one outcome for the stock market index performance. And there is a very high probability that over the long term it will outperform EVERY Super fund, not just the median and the 50% that do worse than the median. And not just by a little either. And how do you know which Super fund will be the best in the future? Your kid's choice might just end up in the bottom 50 percentile 

john
john from VIC commented:

I think that you mean that being involved with a "retail" fund would lead you to being fleeced. Incidentally, "Vanguard's" fees aren't exactly low. 

Gary
Gary from VIC replied to john:

John, Great point. The retail Super funds and other managed funds do indeed charge higher fees than the industry Super funds. You would battle to find too many retail Super funds that charge < 1.5% p.a. that invests to some degree in the stock market. Most gravitate closer to 2% p.a. in Australia. In the USA these have fallen dramatically over the last 10 years and now average just above 1% p.a. for active mutual/managed funds as the pressure of the anti-fee movement from index mutual funds and ETFs takes hold. You are also partially correct in saying that "Vanguard's fees aren't exactly low". Typically Vanguard's fess for the index mutual/managed funds and index ETFs are much lower than other funds'. However, the Vanguard ASX300 index fund in Australia has annual fees of 0.75%. This is atypically high for Vanguard. The equivalent Vanguard ASX300 ETF, ASX code = VAS, has annual fees of 0.14%, making the ETF the far better choice as performance pre-fees is exactly the same. And you can see from my Reply to Gertraud below what a huge difference 0.61% p.a. makes over the long term in lost compounding. 

Gertraud
Gertraud from ACT commented:

It would appear that the author of the book has vested interests! I agree with John from QLD and Claire from NSW that industry funds have the lowest fees. This aside, there are plenty of books available to people seeking to educate themselves about managing their investments. 

Gary
Gary from VIC replied to Gertraud:

Gertraud, I do have two vested interests wrt to the topic of discussion. One is to use my 25+ years of research and experience to publicly question the financial establishment to hopefully improve the investing landscape for everybody. I will hopefully do this by raising the knowledge and understanding of everyday investors through my book and forums such as this. (BTW, everybody who contributes to Super is by default an investor.) The People vs Fees movement was started 40 years ago by John Bogle of Vanguard but there is still a long way to go. If he hadn't started the movement perhaps managed/mutual fund fees would still be 2% - 3% p.a. and investment advisers would still be charging 1% - 2% p.a. on top of that The other vested interest is my business of 21 years where my customers keep questioning me to keep on my game. There are plenty of good investing books out there - I have read 100s of them and even met or spoken to some of the authors both in Australia nd the USA. 

Kathy
Kathy from VIC commented:

So where can a person deposit their Super so that it will grow in compound interest without paying the continuing high fees to the financial advisors and funds themselves? 

Gary
Gary from VIC replied to Kathy:

Kathy, Invest using ETFs, which I did mention in my article above. Also, see my Replies to Clair and John below. Super investing in a multi-decade venture and this is what investing in ETFs is best for. Reducing fees plays a huge role in achieving long-term compounded growth. For example, paying 0.75% p.a. more in fees every year for exactly the same long-term performance over forty years between two funds starting off with $15,000 with inflation-indexed monthly contributions can result in having $524,000 less in the retiree’s nest egg. And paying 0.75% p.a. more over thirty years starting with $250,000 can result in having $650,000 less in a retirement nest egg. 

Comment Guidelines