Showing posts with label retirement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label retirement. Show all posts

Friday 12 August 2011

Reaping the rewards


Lesley Parker
August 10, 2011
Drink to that ... make an early calculation of how much you need.
Drink to that ... make an early calculation of how much you need.
Planning makes all the difference when it comes to achieving a comfortable retirement.
A couple wanting a ''comfortable'' retirement - where they can afford to have some fun, not just pay the bills - now needs more than $1000 a week, by one estimate. A ''modest'' lifestyle requires $600 a week, according to the super industry's retirement benchmarks.
But what is comfortable and what is modest - and how much do you need to save for one or the other?
The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) releases a Retirement Standard every three months and its most recent calculation is that a couple now needs $54,562 a year for a comfortable retirement and $31,263 for a modest one - an increase of 2 per cent to 3 per cent on the annual income required a year earlier.
Source: Super Ratings.
Source: Super Ratings.
ASFA describes a modest lifestyle in retirement as being something ''better than the age pension but still only able to afford fairly basic activities''.
A comfortable lifestyle means an older, healthy retiree can take part in a broad range of leisure activities and can afford to buy such things as household goods, private health insurance, a reasonable car, good clothes and a range of electronic equipment, it says. They should be able to afford holidays in Australia and, occasionally, overseas.
WEEKLY BUDGETS
ASFA's latest weekly budget for a couple enjoying a comfortable lifestyle includes just less than $200 for food, $135 to own and run a car, $120 for health insurance and health care, $30 for phones and the internet, $44 for power, about $75 for housing (including insurance and maintenance), $57 towards clothing and about $85 for services such as cleaning and haircuts.
In the $300-odd budgeted for leisure, there is $80 to dine out, $40 to have a drink, plus the equivalent of one movie a week. About $130 of that amount is set aside for holidays, including $50 earmarked for overseas travel.
The budget for a modest lifestyle steps things down a bit, at $155 for food, $88 to own and run a car and $55 for housing costs. And it halves the amount for health care, communications, clothing and services. Power stays about the same.
The biggest cuts come in leisure, where only $100-odd is set aside, including $25 to dine out and $15 to have a drink - though movie night stays. As for holidays, just $36 is set aside, for domestic travel only.
The head of technical services at MLC, Gemma Dale, says you will need a sizeable nest egg to generate the income the ASFA standards target - comfortable or modest.
''It will take a lot of money to provide these income levels over what could amount to 20 or 30 years,'' Dale says.
A couple, with each partner aged 60, would need to retire with a nest egg of about $535,000 to have only a modest lifestyle lasting as long as the official life expectancy of the partner likely to live longest - that is, 26 years (to 86) for the woman. If the couple wanted a comfortable lifestyle, they'd need to retire with about $940,000 in capital.
''That's after paying off your mortgage,'' Dale says. These figures assume the couple uses their super to start a pension, providing them with tax-free income, and that they don't qualify for the age pension. It also assumes their money earns 7 per cent a year and that they're prepared to use up their super over those 26 years.
They would need even more if they wanted to build in a ''buffer'' in case one or both of them lived longer than expected, or to provide an inheritance.
The earlier you would like to retire and the higher the annual income you'd like in retirement, the more super you'll need. If the couple retires at 55, rather than 60, they'll need $1.05 million for a comfortable retirement to age 86, or $590,000 for a modest lifestyle, by MLC's calculations. In contrast, if they keep working until 65, the nest egg they'll require drops to $850,000 and $480,000 respectively, because of the shorter period to cover to age 86.
Investment options also play a key role and members should take advice, compare investment options and risks when planning ahead for their eventual retirement. Some options, such as ''growth'' are slightly more aggressive than ''balanced'' options.
USE A CALCULATOR
So how much do you need to save?
That depends on how old you are now and how much you have in super already.
MLC gives the example of a couple both aged 50 - let's call them Mark and Lisa - who would like to retire comfortably, in line with ASFA's definition, when they reach 60. They will need $940,000 in super in today's dollars. Let's say they have $325,000 and $150,000 in super already and they earn pre-tax salaries of $100,000 and $50,000 respectively, with their employers making the minimum superannuation guarantee (SG) contributions of 9 per cent a year, and assume their super is earning 7 per cent a year.
Ignoring the proposal to progressively increase the SG rate to 12 per cent by 2019-20 (which isn't yet legislated), they could accumulate about $810,000 in today's dollars - falling short of their target. This means they could run out of money by the time Lisa turns 81. But if they were both to sacrifice $5000 of their pre-tax salary into super for the next 10 years, they could enjoy that comfortable lifestyle until Lisa reaches age 86. If they salary-sacrificed $10,000 each, they'd have a buffer in case one of them lives until 91. This is without considering other strategies to give their super a boost, such as starting a transition-to-retirement pension when they reach 55 so they can enjoy the tax savings of super while still working.
You can do your own sums using the super calculator at mlc.com.au. This estimates how much super you might need and how much you might end up with. It allows you to dial variables up and down to see how you might bridge any gap.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/money/super-and-funds/reaping-the-rewards-20110809-1ijn2.html#ixzz1UlYroB75

Monday 16 May 2011

Investing in Retirement


Stability back in fashion

Lesley Parker
April 20, 2011
    Balancing act...investors are advised that a diverse portfolio is important to achieve an adequate income in retirement.
    Balancing act...investors are advised that a diverse portfolio is important to achieve an adequate income in retirement.
    Three years after the peak of the global financial crisis, retirees and pre-retirees remain wary, saying they would rather have peace of mind than chase high returns, according to new research.
    In a survey late last year, researcher Investment Trends asked 1000 retirees and pre-retirees what they thought was most important in a retirement investment product and they overwhelmingly valued stability over high returns.
    The five features the respondents ranked most highly were tax effectiveness (which was rated as essential, very important or important by 91 per cent of those surveyed); easy access to their money (87 per cent); a product that was easy to understand (86 per cent); stable returns (86 per cent) and protection against market falls (77 per cent).
    ''These results turn established wisdom on its head, with stable returns proving much more important than higher returns or lower costs,'' says the chief operating officer of Investment Trends, Tim Cobb. ''That may reflect investors' experiences during the GFC, with many experiencing large and unpredictable fluctuations in their retirement savings.''
    ANNUITIES AND GUARANTEES
    Cobb says the results indicate it might be ''time for investors and advisers to take another look at annuities and some of the innovative new retirement income products which offer protection against market falls''.
    Annuity-style products, with their contracted rates of return, have been a hard sell for many years and especially while the sharemarket offered double-digit returns.
    However, anyone who watches television will have seen how Challenger's ad campaign taps into the anxiety retirees are feeling by promoting ''safe, reliable retirement income'' from its annuity products.
    With these products, you make an initial investment in return for agreed income payments over a contracted period. The rate of return is fixed at the outset and doesn't fall if markets go down - but it doesn't rise if markets go up, either.
    Then there are ''capital-protected'' products. AXA's North product, for instance, offers an optional ''protected retirement guarantee'' feature that locks in guaranteed income.
    Advisers say clients, particularly retirees, are more wary because of the GFC but their advice to them is not to give up on risk - market risk - only to take on other forms of risk, such as the danger that inflation will erode the value of their retirement savings.
    An HLB Mann Judd financial adviser, Chris Hogan, says that while most of his older clients are more risk-averse, ''they still recognise that growth assets are an essential component of their investment portfolios''.
    NO FREE LUNCH
    A financial adviser and director of Multiforte Financial Services, Kate McCallum, who also finds retirees in particular are more risk-aware, says ''it comes down to the practical challenge of how to protect capital while achieving the return they want''.
    She gets the occasional inquiry from a client about annuity or capital-protected products ''but we're not fans of protected products as they're very expensive and we believe a well-constructed portfolio that's managed - not set-and-forget - can be a better option''.''I suppose the key message here is: there's no free lunch,'' McCallum says.
    ''There's a cost of having the capital protection and the certainty and this needs to be evaluated for each client [with regard to] their comfort level with volatility and their return requirements.''
    Hogan says he doesn't see much interest in annuities and capital-protected products, either. ''Our view is that we don't need to get too tricky with innovative products,'' he says. ''Protection is available simply and cheaply through holding term deposits, uncomplicated fixed-interest funds and cash'', as part of a diversified portfolio.
    He, too, notes that capital protection typically comes at a cost. ''For an annuity, the cost is lack of liquidity,'' he says, with your capital sum locked up for a set period.
    People also need to compare the return being offered on an annuity with term deposits, which currently have quite high interest rates.
    ''For other structured products with capital protection built in, the underlying fees can be very high,'' he says. ''We generally don't think the cost is worth it.''
    (In a recent relaunch of the North platform, AXA - well aware of criticisms concerning cost - cut its standard administration fees, halving the rate for smaller account sizes from about 0.9 per cent to 0.4 per cent.)
    McCallum notes that with many capital-protected products there's a set period for the protection to work. ''If you have to break the set term, there are usually hefty penalties associated with that.''
    DIVERSIFICATION IS BEST
    The head of retail for Australian Unity Investments, Cameron Dickman, says those who keep their money in cash aren't necessarily working towards their ultimate goal of having a retirement income that lasts as long as they do.
    While keeping a significant proportion of retirement savings in cash options such as term deposits minimises market risk, ''it exposes investors to a number of other risks, including inflation risk, income risk and opportunity risk'', he says.
    Inflation risk is the risk that capital locked up in non-growth assets, such as term deposits, will have less value at the end of, say, a two-, three- or five-year term.
    Opportunity risk is the risk that you'll miss out on better returns and capital growth from opportunities that might become available while your money is locked up.
    Perhaps the biggest risk at the moment is income risk, Dickman says.
    A stable, regular income will become a priority for the baby boomers now starting to enter retirement but they won't get that from a term deposit for which interest is often paid at the end of the term, he says.
    ''Retirees, in particular, need to … find a balance between their desire for low-risk investments and their need for returns that will generate ongoing income in their retirement,'' Dickman says. ''It comes back to the value of taking a balanced approach through a diversified portfolio and understanding that different investments offer different benefits, returns and risks.''
    Key points
    • Retirees are more interested in stable returns than high returns or low costs.
    • Capital-protected and annuity products tap into this concern.
    • But advisers say the cost of such products has to be weighed against the promised peace of mind.
    • They warn that being in cash to avoid market risk means you take on other risks, such as inflation.
    • Diversification is the best protection, they say.


     http://www.smh.com.au/money/investing/stability-back-in-fashion-20110419-1dlzl.html#ixzz1MT4O7Zax

    Tuesday 26 October 2010

    Filial tradition in China withering

    Filial tradition in China withering
    By Zhang Yuchen (China Daily)
    Updated: 2010-10-25


    Elderly entering old age without support of kids

    GUANGZHOU - A recent study of the elderly in parts of Guangdong province, in southern China, has shown that the tradition of children supporting their aged parents is slowly fading away.

    The survey of nearly 1,300 people aged 60 or above, living in urban areas, found that, more and more, the elderly are living by themselves and are instead providing financial support to their adult children.


    Two elderly women applaud a performance by young volunteers who come regularly to the Songtang Hospice, in Beijing, to offer care and entertainment for the older patients, on Oct 16. [Wang Jing / China Daily]

    The study was done by the Guangdong Academy of Social Sciences' elderly affairs research center, from July to September of this year, and found that more than 10 percent of the people have to give monetary support to their adult children on a monthly basis. A third of them give money to their children from time to time.

    Related readings:
    Shanghai's elderly enjoy public, private care
    Elderly get the world at their doorstep
    Mental care for the elderly
    High suicide rate haunts Chinese elderly

    Some 16 percent of the elderly said they found this hard to bear because giving away a part of their pension had a serious impact on the quality of life in retirement.
    Chinese tradition over the centuries, as has been the case in many other countries, has been for people to have as many children as possible so that they can rely on them for support when they get too old to care for themselves.

    They often live with their children and help with the housework or take care of grandchildren, when the parents are busy with their work.

    The study found more than 40 percent of the elderly comply with tradition and take care of grandchildren, while around 20 percent help with the housework.

    But changing social conditions are now forcing more of the urban elderly to fend for themselves and 62 percent of them live apart from their grown-up children.

    And, only 48 percent of these "empty nesters" can expect a weekly visit from their children, while around 28 percent can expect a visit once a month. For 24 percent, it's only once every year.

    Perhaps surprisingly, even when they live with their children, most of the elderly are confronted with loneliness. The study found that more than 75 percent of the elderly long for greater spiritual support from their children.

    One 72-year-old man surnamed Chen, in Guangzhou's Baiyun district, said he felt a lack of communication with his son even though he can see his son's family frequently, since they live in the same community.

    "I never have supper with my son' s family because I don't want to disturb the only part of the day when they have time to spend together," Chen said, "And because my son seldom expresses much, we talk less."

    Once, he said, he was sick in bed for two months and his son didn't even notice.

    According to some doctors, this empty-nester syndrome is becoming a social problem - one that can not be ignored.

    "With an increasingly aging society, the number of elderly empty-nesters increases annually," said Zhang Yanchi, a doctor at Guangzhou's Baiyun Psychiatric Hospital.

    Li Dandan, of the Guangzhou Volunteers' Union, has suggested that it would be better if the elderly just spoke directly with their children about their feelings and their situation. An alternative is to communicate more with other elderly people in the community.

    Guangdong had 10.47 million people aged 60 or above by the end of 2009, Nanfang Daily reported in February.

    http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-10/25/content_11451440.htm

    Wednesday 20 October 2010

    Apathy could cost you 20pc extra income in retirement

    Annuity rates have slumped alarmingly since the financial crisis and they have just keep falling.
    The financial crisis has wreaked havoc on our personal finances, so much so that few areas have escaped.
    Shares have been volatile, mortgages difficult to get, while savings rates have been at rock-bottom levels. Yet there is another area that has also been severely hit – annuities.
    Annuity rates have slumped alarmingly since the financial crisis and they just keep falling. As at the end of March, a £100,000 joint life annuity for a man aged 65 and woman aged 60, with two-thirds spouse pension and level payments paid, would get you £6,080. Today, it would pay £5,749.
    It is little wonder that people are delaying taking their annuity. According to Schroders, more than one in five were delaying taking an annuity because they felt the income returns were poor compared to other investments.
    But the financial crisis is not the only thing contributing to lower annuity rates. The other main factor is how long someone will live. The trend is very much for longer lives, which has an adverse impact on rates. Increasing levels of impaired annuities (which pay people a higher income if they have suffered, say, a heart attack) mean that the "poor" lives are not subsidising the "good" lives as they used to.
    Those in postcode areas where people live longer are also seeing a rate reduction.
    It could also get a lot worse. New European rules could force providers to value annuity liabilities using gilt yields rather than bond yields as they do now. The result, experts predict, will mean an increase in capital requirements, which according to best estimates will reduce rates by between 20pc and 30pc.
    The Coalition may have proposed to scrap compulsory annuity purchase but for the vast majority of people, this won't be an option because their retirement pots won't be big enough to pass over the need to lock-in an income level for life.
    Yet buying an annuity is, arguably, the most important financial decision you will ever make. If you make the wrong choice it could cost you thousands of pounds in lost retirement income.
    It is six years since the Financial Services Authority changed the rules to compel pension providers to inform customers about the open market option – the term given to the right to buy an annuity from any provider you choose.
    The hope was that more people would scour the market for a better deal rather than accept the offer from their pension provider. But little has changed. The apathy is a major concern because people could boost their retirement income by as much as 20 per cent simply by shopping around.
    One of the problems is that insurers have a vested interest in keeping quiet about the open market option because they do not want to lose business. They may have to tell customers that they can shop elsewhere, but they do not have to (and do not) offer comparisons to illustrate how good or poor their rates are against other insurers.
    Add in the cumbersome process of buying an annuity from a company other than your pension provider – delays can leave you without pension income for at least a month – and you have another reason not to use the open market option.
    Insurers reckon that most people do know they can shop around, it's just that they get a better deal from their pension provider. Yet financial advisers are not convinced – and
    nor, it would seem, is the Government, which wants the industry to justify why the open market option take-up is low.
    Advisers still believe that most people, to their cost, just grab the offer from their pension provider. Married people all too often opt for a single-life annuity when buying a joint-life annuity may be the better course of action, while most fail to consider the effects of inflation. Impaired annuities are also overlooked too often.
    The golden rule is not just to take the first annuity that comes along. Check whether there are better rates on the "open market'' (look at the FSA's comparative tables on its website). And if you are in any doubt, take advice – annuity rates are not compromised by commission.
    You have spent years grafting and saving for retirement. You owe it to yourself not to be hasty and simply tick the annuity box from your pension provider without a second thought.


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/comment/paulfarrow/7975169/Apathy-could-cost-you-20pc-extra-income-in-retirement.html

    Tuesday 19 October 2010

    The Financial Time Bomb of Longer Lives



    Christophe Vorlet




    FIRST the good news: We’re living longer, healthier lives than ever before.
    We’re already so used to the idea of greater longevity, in fact, that it may seem ho-hum to learn that boys and girls born in 2008 in the United States have life expectancies of 75 and 81, respectively.
    Those life spans, however, represent a bonus of about three decades, compared with Americans born in 1900, according to a report last year from the Census Bureau. And, by the way, Spain, Greece and Austria fared even better, proportionally: Life expectancies in those countries doubled over the course of the 20th century.
    Now for the bad news: At this rate, we can’t afford to live so long.
    And by “we,” I don’t just mean you, me and our often insufficient long-term-careinsurance policies. I mean “we the people.” I mean the bureaucratic “we.”
    For the first time in human history, people aged 65 and over are about to outnumber children under 5. In many countries, older people entitled to government-funded pensions, health services and long-term care will soon outnumber the work force whose taxes help finance those benefits. This demographic shift also means that the number of people living with dementia, whose treatment is estimated to cost $604 billion worldwide this year, is expected to more than triple, to 115 million, by 2050, according to a report this year by Alzheimer’s Disease International, a group representing 73 Alzheimer’s associations around the world.
    No other force is as likely to shape the future of national economic health, public finances and national policies, according to a new analysis on global aging from Standard & Poor’s, as the “irreversible rate at which the population is growing older.”
    How are the most developed countries handling preparations for the boom in the elderly population — and for the budget-busting expenditures that are sure to follow?
    For a majority, not very well.
    Unless governments enact sweeping changes to age-related public spending, sovereign debt could become unsustainable, rivaling levels seen during cataclysms like the Great Depression and World War II, according to the S.& P. report.
    If the status quo continues, the report projects, the median government debt in the most advanced economies could soar to 329 percent of gross domestic product by 2050. By contrast, Britain’s debt represented only 252 percent of G.D.P. in 1946, in the aftermath of World War II, the report said.
    So what is to be done?
    For starters, governments should extend the retirement age, says Marko Mrsnik, the associate director of sovereign ratings in Europe for S.& P. and the lead author of the report. Another no-brainer, he says, is that governments should balance their budgets.
    Alas, private citizens often don’t see the logic in curbing public benefits in order to maintain national solvency. Witness France last week, where more than one million people took to the streets to protest pension reform that would raise the minimum legal retirement age to 62 from 60.
    Moreover, global aging experts say, measures like pension reform are inadequate, piecemeal responses to the giant demographic shift that is upon us.
    If the cost of maintaining aging populations could lead to World War II-era levels of government debt, a solution to the crisis will require a mass-scale collaborative response akin to the Manhattan Project or the space race, says Michael W. Hodin, who is an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and researches aging issues.
    Governments, industry and international agencies, he says, will have to work together to transform the very structure of society, by creating jobs and education programs for people in their 60s and 70s — the hypothetical new middle age — and by tackling diseases like Alzheimer’s whose likelihood increases as people age.
    “What we need is a very fundamental and profound transformation that is proportionate to the social shifts that are upon us and that is truly innovative in the public arena, innovation that is driven by industry,” says Mr. Hodin.
    Here’s one simple suggestion: Influential international organizations, government agencies, companies and academic institutions should take up aging as a cause, the way they have already done for the environment. Although the United Nations, for example, set eight “millennium development goals” — ensuring environmental sustainability, promoting gender equality, and so on — for 2015, the list did not include ensuring the sustainability and equality of aging populations.
    “This is quite unacceptable that aging hasn’t been included in these goals,” says Baroness Greengross, a member of the House of Lords in Britain and chief executive of theInternational Longevity Centre U.K in London.
    Here’s another suggestion: Governments with national health programs or other state coverage could start curbing the growth in medical spending ahead of the looming elderquake.
    If countries wait to act, says Peter S. Heller, a senior adjunct professor of economics atJohns Hopkins University, they will have to scramble reactively to cut their budgets in response to burgeoning older populations, the way Greece, Ireland and Spain have done recently. At the same time, he says, politicians must also start educating citizens to understand that greater longevity may entail personal sacrifices, like increased savings and a willingness to pay higher shares of their medical and long-term care costs.
    But the carrot may be a better approach than the stick, says Laura L. Carstensen, a professor of psychology at Stanford and the director of the Stanford Center on Longevity. She describes her outfit as a multidisciplinary research center whose “modest aim is to change the course of human aging.”
    Rather than uniformly extending the retirement age, she says, governments and the private sector could develop incentives that motivate older people to remain in the work force. Those incentives might include bonuses for people who work until they are 70, exempting employers from paying Social Security taxes for employees over retirement age, more flexible work schedules, telecommuting options, and sabbaticals for education and training.
    “Maybe culture needs to change first,” says Professor Carstensen, “and policy will follow.”
    FINALLY, some governments and companies may need attitude adjustments so they can view aging populations not as debt loads but as valuable wells of expertise.
    “I rather dispute your calling it a problem,” said Lady Greengross when I called to ask her how governments could better handle global aging. “It’s a celebration.”
    As one example of how to embrace aging populations, she cites an equality act, recently passed by British legislators, that prohibits discrimination against older people (among others) seeking goods and services like car rentals or mortgages. Separately, she says, Britain next year will eliminate its default retirement age of 65, allowing people to remain in the work force longer.
    “In the long run, I’d like to see age irrelevance,” Lady Greengross says, “where people aren’t just labeled by their birthdays.”

    Wednesday 29 September 2010

    Beat the maze: how to meet aged-care costs

    September 22, 2010
    Be prepared...Gregor Whiley says a family's situation can change very quickly. Be prepared...Gregor Whiley says a family's situation can change very quickly. Photo: Steven Siewert
    Navigating the minefield of putting family members into aged care is tricky. Lesley Parker decodes the loopholes that could save you money and heartache.
    Arranging aged care for an elderly parent who isn't coping at home can be an emotionally draining experience - and that's before the added stress of navigating the unfamiliar and complex territory of Australia's welfare system to make sure you're doing the right thing by them financially.
    Adult children find themselves in the reverse role of carer and decision maker at this time, facing choices such as whether or not to sell the family house to meet the costs of residential care - something that isn't as straightforward a decision as it seems.
    The numbers can be daunting - aged-care accommodation bonds averaged $213,000 nationally in 2009 but are commonly between $350,000 and $450,000 for facilities in the big cities.
    At the top end, they nudge $1 million for a resort-style room in a prestige Sydney location.
    But, again, nothing is as it seems and there are reasons some people may prefer to pay a high bond.
    "These are very significant financial decisions," says Brendan Burwood, the managing director of ipac financial care, a new division of the financial-planning firm. "In fact, it's possibly the second-biggest financial decision mum will ever make."
    And they're decisions many people end up making in a hurry.
    "Things happen so quickly," says the co-founder of Strategy Steps, Louise Biti, who works with financial planners on aged-care strategies.
    "'Mum's had a fall and we have to get her into the right place.' People focus on that without realising there's a wide range of [financial] opportunities and implications."
    All this means adult children should have that potentially awkward but altogether necessary conversation with their ageing parents - and with family advisers.
    TYPES OF CARE
    To understand the funding of aged care - and possible financial strategies - you need to understand the different types of care.
    The executive manager of aged-care solutions for Colonial First State, Rachel Lane, describes the complexity.
    "There are three different types of aged-care facility and it's possible for these three different types of care to exist under one roof," she says. "Within two of these types of care there are three different types of residents."
    The rules and strategies differ depending where mum or dad falls on that matrix (so, naturally, we can provide only some broad outlines here).
    Most elderly people requiring support receive "community" care - services in their own home via the Home and Community Care (HACC) packages and, to a lesser extent, from the Community Aged Care Package (CACP) and Extended Aged Care at Home (EACH) program.
    Those seeking "residential" aged care in a facility will encounter three categories: low care, high care and extra services. Low-care accommodation comes with "personal care" services, such as help with bathing and eating.
    High care adds nursing services into the mix for those with greater needs. That's not to be confused with extra services, which refers to a higher standard of accommodation, food and other hotel-type services.
    "People think it's simply a matter of putting your name down at an aged-care facility but it's not at all like that," says the family services manager of Expect A Star, Lisa Phelan.
    Expect A Star assists companies to help its staff who have elderly parents deal with the government-subsidised aged-care system.
    FINDING A PLACE
    In fact, a facility won't want your name until you come armed with an ACAT form - the report from an Aged Care Assessment Team that is the key to unlocking the aged-care system.
    The government assessment of your parent's needs will determine which type of care or facility is appropriate.
    Without an ACAT form, your parent won't attract a government subsidy - in 2009, an average of $48,550 for a high-care resident and $17,750 for a low-care resident.
    The founder and director of home-based care provider Just Better Care, Trish Noakes, warns there can be a six- to nine-month queue for an ACAT assessment in places such as metropolitan Sydney.
    "It can be faster if someone's waiting to be discharged from hospital and they may need to go into residential care but a person at home could have high needs and not be managing and that doesn't fast-track them," Noakes says.
    Ask your GP to help.
    Once the assessment is made, your parent may have another queue to join to actually receive the home-based services, while residential care facilities are running at high occupancy. So start investigating your options early.
    An ACAT assessment is free and valid for 12 months.
    THE COSTS
    Now you have an ACAT form that says mum or dad is eligible for a particular type of residential care, you can start thinking about the costs. (Please note the figures used are for the past year. The annual adjustment of government-regulated rates was due at the time of writing.)
    Biti says the upfront entry cost - if any - depends on three things: the type of care, how much you have in "assessable" assets (and we'll look at whether the house counts) and the facility's commercial considerations.
    A facility can charge an upfront bond for low-care or extra-services accommodation but not for standard high care, where an annual accommodation charge applies.
    Let's look at standard high care first. Currently, the maximum permitted accommodation charge is $9811.20 a year. This is payable every year your parent is a resident (paid monthly).
    The actual amount is based on your parent's assets. If they have less than $37,500 in assets they don't have to pay an accommodation charge.
    Between there and assets of $93,410.40 they'll pay a pro rata amount. If their assets are more than $93,410.40, they'll pay the maximum.
    The amount is fixed when your parent enters the facility and won't rise. Subsequent increases won't apply to them, only to new residents.
    In high-care extra services and low care, the upfront accommodation bond is regulated to some extent but isn't a set amount.
    "Each facility will have a different rate or range of rates," Biti says. "They might charge different bonds for different rooms - some rooms might be nicer or newer than others.
    "They're also starting to charge based on the capacity of the person to pay. What we're finding sometimes is that while they might usually want a bond of around $350,000, if they think someone's got the capacity to pay a higher amount, they might charge them more."
    That's not necessarily a bad thing, she says. "People may want to pay a higher bond because they get better social security benefits as a result." (We'll explain this shortly.)
    Again, the facility has to leave you with at least $37,500 in assets after the bond. So, if you have less than $37,500 you won't have to lodge one. If you have $50,000 in assets, the bond can't be any more than $12,500.
    And if you have $1,037,500 in assets, theoretically they could ask you to pay a $1 million bond, though this is rare, Biti says.
    Before you have a heart attack, remember the bond is government-guaranteed and refundable, less a retention amount taken out monthly for the first five years only.
    The retention amount is currently $307.50 a month, or $18,450 in total before it cuts out at five years. Again, this is fixed on the date of entry.
    Does that mean someone with $50,000 in assets will be turned away? Not necessarily. If you have less than $93,410.40, you're classified as a "supported resident" and government-accredited facilities have to fill a quota of such residents. That may or may not make your parent of interest to them.
    If you have more than $93,410.40 (so mum doesn't fall into a quota) but less than you need to pay the full bond (in our example, $350,000 plus the $37,500 that needs to stay in her pocket) you might have trouble, though.
    "If you've got $150,000 worth of assets, a facility that wants a bond of $350,000 is likely to not even look at you," Biti says. "You can't pay the bond they want and you can't help meet the quota.
    "There's this big gap of people who don't have huge amounts of assets who are not going to get into some of these facilities."
    Those people might have to widen their search or rely on in-home care until increasing need qualifies them for a bond-free, high-care place.
    As well as entry costs, you need to consider the ongoing costs of care.
    Every resident of an aged-care facility pays a basic, daily-care fee. A resident who moved into care in the past year would be paying $35.89 or $38.65 a day (there are two categories here).
    In addition, residents whose assessable income is above certain thresholds have to pay an "income-tested fee".
    This could be as low as $1 a day up to a maximum of $62.11 and is calculated by Centrelink.
    And, of course, you'll pay extra fees for extra services.
    THE FAMILY HOME
    At this point you'll have lots of questions about the family home, including whether it counts when mum or dad's assets are tallied.
    Assets other than the home are divided between two spouses but Lane says the home won't count while a spouse, or someone such as a dependent child or longstanding carer who's on a benefit, still lives there.
    That's one reason why you might need advice on the different financial outcomes depending on whether your parents enter care together or separately. "Staggering them going in might give you a better financial outcome - but if you do that you might not get them into the same room or adjoining rooms that might be available ... sometimes it's more important to get that right," Biti says.
    And then there's the complication that not having a bond to offer may place your parent behind someone else with a bond when a facility looks through its waiting list.
    If it's just mum or dad living on their own then the house will be assessable for bond purposes.
    That raises the question of whether or not to sell the house to meet the bond. When you have a $500,000 bond to pay, the answer may seem obvious. But that's before considering the impact of the $700,000 left over once you sell a Sydney house for, say, $1.2 million.
    "It's that surplus you have to be very careful about," Burwood says.
    "People might whack it in the bank but that money is then assessable as an asset and it earns income.
    "It may end up reducing mum's pension and increasing her income-tested fee. You've got to think through some alternatives."
    One option would be to negotiate a higher bond, in return for discounted fees or no retention amount, perhaps. Because the bond is exempt from the Centrelink assets test, it won't negatively affect the pension or income-tested fee. This strategy could even increase the pension.
    But it is possible to go too far, Lane says. "Beyond a certain point, you can't get more pension and the facility can run out of fees and charges to discount."
    Burwood says other strategies might be to gift some money up to allowable limits, buy an annuity that's treated favourably for the income test, or buy a funeral bond of up to $11,000.
    You could rent out the house instead to generate income to meet care costs but be aware that you need to structure things in a certain way otherwise the rent will be assessable income immediately and the house will become assessable after two years.
    Burwood says the strategy here is to negotiate with the aged-care facility to pay only part of the accommodation bond and then make periodic payments on the rest. You'll pay a regulated rate of interest (currently 8.8 per cent) to do this.
    "Even with a very small amount of unpaid bond, you've still got a liability to the facility and under the rules, the home and its rental income remain exempt," he says.
    These and other strategies involve complex interactions and calculations, so getting advice is a good idea.
    There's no single correct strategy, the advisers say, because it's not a purely financial decision. "For some people it will make sense to suggest one strategy, for other people, for emotional reasons, it will make sense to suggest another," Burwood says.
    The importance of export financial advice

    The Whiley siblings knew nothing about the aged-care system when, after two falls in quick succession, it became obvious their mother's days of independent living were over.
    Their mother was recovering in respite care when she was finally assessed as being eligible for a place in a low-care facility.
    The family quickly checked out facilities and sought advice while she was still in rehabilitation. "We had to work backwards — finding places that had vacancies and then looking at those," Gregor Whiley says of their Sydney-based search.
    Whiley says he highly recommends getting financial advice. "It's not like my mother had a vast fortune — she had her unit, her Centrelink pension and her super," he says. "But the alternative is taking on the responsibility yourself for working through all the possible issues.
    "It's just too hard and you're starting from absolute zero. The clock is ticking, you need to get your parent settled somewhere and you can't afford the time to go through 57 pages of Centrelink stuff.
    "In low care, you're going to end up paying [a bond of] $300,000, absolute minimum, so what's the point of cavilling over $2000 to get a range of options, things explained, fears allayed and everything laid out?"
    Colonial First State's executive manager, aged care solutions, Rachel Lane, says it's a good idea to get the "respite care" box ticked on the ACAT form, as this gives you breathing room and can ease your parent's transition to permanent care.
    Whiley says the family managed to "move a metric tonne of stuff" out of his mother's unit, clean it and sell it to raise the bond just as the respite days were running out.
    "The other thing that's critical to have sorted out is power of attorney [so you can act on your parent's behalf]," he says. Do this now, while your parent is still legally able to sign the documents.
    "A situation that's been stable for five years can change in five weeks," Whiley says.

    Key points

    Plan ahead — your parents’ circumstances can change quickly.
    Decisions will involve both financial and emotional considerations.
    Consider the impact of a strategy on care costs, tax, the pension and cash flow.
    Think carefully about any surplus from selling the family home.
    Paying a higher bond could mean a higher pension and lower fees.
    Source: theage.com.au

    http://www.smh.com.au/money/planning/beat-the-maze-how-to-meet-agedcare-costs-20100922-15m0d.html