Sign in     Like us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Watch us on YouTube

News and Blog

Join 5000 other sharemarket traders for regular blog updates!

Browse to a category

Blog Search

Spending, Relationship Quality, and Life Satisfaction in Retirement

Apparently how you spend your money in retirement has a lot to do with your life satisfaction – this is off course assuming you have any money in retirement to spend. Long story made short spending it on time consuming leisure activities where health allows generates the most satisfaction. Overall satisfaction is also increased by having a partner, robust health and friends. Intriguingly other types of spending and children did not raise retirees level of satisfaction.

The full article can be downloaded from here and the abstract is copied below.

Abstract

Prior economic research has focused on the relation between money and well-being, rather than how resources are used to elicit life satisfaction in retirement. Using Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) along with data from the Health Retirement Study (HRS), this research explores how spending and relationship quality contribute to life satisfaction in retirement, controlling for financial and human capital factors. The results provide evidence to suggest that leisure spending, health status, and spousal and friend relationships have the greatest impact on creating life satisfaction during retirement, while other type of spending and children relationships do not.

Submission for paper presentation for the 2018 Academic Research Colloquium for Financial Planning & Related Disciplines – Michael Finke , Nhat Ho, K Portales,

 

Conundrum Of The Day

I have reflected on the post I wrote last week about the great superannuation rip off in which I compared the returns from investing in an average growth fund with those derived from investing in the index. It struck me over the weekend that the majority of fund managers (read almost all ) are followers of the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH).  The central tenet of  the EMH is that it is impossible to beat the market because all information is seamlessly incorporated into a securities price and that investor will react in a rational manner to this information.

So the question becomes if the people managing superannuation funds believe this to be true and I think they do, why then then do they have growth portfolio’s? Growth portfolios are in simple terms stock picking portfolio’s designed to beat the market. If you believe you cannot beat the market why then bother with stock picking? This is a massive contradiction and I have no idea how they reconcile this.

But then again they managed to reconcile charging vast amounts for bringing no skill whatsoever to the investment process.

The Great Idiot Tax Continues

It is at this time of the year when superannuation funds crow about how good they have done and of their inestimable benefit to mankind in general and this year was no exception.  So as is my now annual tradition I thought I would have a look at how good they have done and compare that to the real world where delusions about how good you think you are dont exist. From the article I linked to I took this table which looks at the average return of a a growth fund since 1993.

Screen-Shot-2017-07-03-at-1.44.22-pm

Source – Superannuation returns above 10% for the June Year

This piece acts as a good starting point for comparison with the market. For this I used the All Ordinaries Total Return index which used to be known as the Accumulation Index. It includes not only the price movement of the index but also folds back in the dividends of the index components so it is a good benchmark for simply passively holding an index fund or ETF.

Capture

When the chart of the average return of a growth fund is first viewed it does create an overall favourable impression – there are only three negative years and returns seem overall to be quite robust. It is only when you compare this active management with a passive benchmark that you realise how poor local managers actually do when compared to the index. Remember these are people who are paid to beat the index and as we will see they are paid staggering sums of money. Looking at annual percentage returns is quite crude and does lack a bit of fidelity, you dont actually know what the true performance differential is so I looked at the value of $1 invested into an average growth fund and into the index and got the following.

C2

The market leaves the industry for dead – the market investment would now be worth $9.87 versus the industries $5.91 and for this privileged investors have been ripped off handsomely. The chart below looks at what my guess of the annual fee intake of superannuation funds is. For this I have assumed an average fee of 1.5% to cover not only management fees but also advisor commissions.

c3

So to produce a theoretical return of slightly better than half what the market produced  in the period above the superannuation industry has collected probably close to $310B in fees. So to once again steal from Winston Churchill – never in the field of human endevour has so much been paid to so few for so little.

General Advice Warning

The Trading Game Pty Ltd (ACN: 099 576 253) is an AFSL holder (Licence no: 468163). This information is correct at the time of publishing and may not be reproduced without formal permission. It is of a general nature and does not take into account your objectives, financial situation or needs. Before acting on any of the information you should consider its appropriateness, having regard to your own objectives, financial situation and needs.