Showing posts with label Retirement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Retirement. Show all posts

13 – Life Insurance

Life InsuranceAs part of a review of all matters financial I initiated in the middle of 2014, one of the items I added to my list of things to mull over was life insurance. The matter surfaced for me when I realised I no longer had any insurance cover through my superannuation fund by virtue of not working (i.e. being a stay-at-home parent) and not contributing regularly to my super account.

I’m not planning to die or be critically injured any time soon but I remember when we took on the mortgage for our PPOR in 2006: the commitment felt almost too large handle. I used to commute into the city regularly by bicycle but, having recently moved to Perth from Adelaide—with a related increase in minor accidents, and as one of two income earners critical to our ability to repay the mortgage, I felt it was time to stop riding. With a few years of wisdom on my side, I don’t feel the same way this time around with the investment property but, conversely, I now have kids and want more than ever to protect my family from the risk of loosing an income/resource.

From personal experience again, my father died at the age of 56 and my grandfather at 65 so I joke that I’ll likely expire at 45. Specifically, my father had a life insurance policy worth $500k when he died and had only recently opted not to increase that policy to $1m. The $500k has served my mom well over the years as she retired and downsized the family home but she also weathered the 2001 tech bubble and then the GFC with most of that money in the stock market. With the payout she’s been comfortable; without it, I don’t know that her retirement years would have been as amenable as she was expecting had my dad lived to retire with her.

When we were working, my wife and I both had automatic life and salary continuance insurance (SCI) (also called income protection) through our super funds. We didn’t pay directly for these policies but they were funded through the fees we pay to each fund (a percentage of our super balances). Notably, the amounts insured were very small—a couple of hundred thousand each for life and SCI.

We had the option, of course, to increase the benefit amounts and do everything through super but I soon came to learn there is a better way—an approach that not only pays for some of the premiums from our otherwise inaccessible (preserved) super balances (we’re not running SMSFs) but also offers tax benefits.

By way of background, I’d scheduled a complimentary meeting with a financial advisor through our accountants at WSC Group (through Jigsaw Financial Planning—again no affiliation here). I took with me our written financial goals and described to Matthew Laird (the advisor) what we’re doing with real estate, where we are with super, and that I’m not looking at stocks or mutual funds. It soon became apparent we didn’t need much in terms of paid financial advice… yet. We did, however, talk about insurance and Matt promised to get some numbers together for us. Importantly, he highlighted the concept of a partial rollover from our super funds to pay some of the premium costs, reducing our out-of-pocket expenses and thereby removing what had been the single biggest blocker, to my mind, to insuring ourselves adequately: cost.

The first thing Matt’s team did was prepare a Personal Protection Plan document for us which summarised our current position in terms of income, assets, expenses, liabilities, goals, and existing insurance. This offered a framework for understanding our insurance shortfall and potential requirements into which the planner injects their recommendations for level of cover and ownership structure. There was no charge for this.

It’s worth quickly describing the different types of insurance because I found this enormously confusing at first. I like to categorise insurance into two simple groups: living benefit, which you receive if you’re not dead, and death benefit, which your estate or nominated beneficiary receives when you die.

Living Benefit

  • Total or Permanent Disability (TPD). A lump sum payout when you’re declared totally and permanently disabled—and can’t work. These policies might exclude heart attack, stroke, cancer and others. A very important distinction to be aware of between TPD policies is that of “Any Occupation” versus “Own Occupation”: with an Own Occupation policy, you’ll receive a payout if you can’t work in your own profession; with an Any Occupation you’ll only receive a payout if you can’t work in any occupation (as Matt says, “as long as you can lick stamps…”). The premium is not tax deductible and the payout is typically not taxed.
  • Trauma (also called Critical Illness or Living). A lump sum payout that covers heart attack, stroke, cancer, and other specific conditions. The sum insured is typically lower and this cover overlaps somewhat with income protection. The premium is not tax deductible and the payout is typically not taxed. For us, I felt this was very much an optional insurance given our SCI cover (see below) and we didn’t buy any trauma.
  • Salary Continuance (SCI) (also called Income Protection). Pays ~75% of your income on an on-going basis, after a waiting period, to the age of 65 if you can’t work. SCI covers heart attack, stroke, cancer, etc. The premium is tax deductible and can be paid through super but I’m told it’s best to pay this one yourself for maximum tax benefits. The benefit is classed as taxable income. With the wife’s insurer, the maximum monthly benefit they’ll underwrite is based on 75% of her highest income year in the last three years.

Death Benefit

  • Term Life. A lump sum payout at death or when you are declared terminally ill (i.e. before you die but with less than 12 months to live). You’ll likely purchase “term” life insurance, in which your premiums cover you for death up to a certain age. You might also be able to purchase permanent life insurance, although I’m not sure this is available in Australia. The premium is not tax deductible and the payout is typically not taxed (but it may be if paid via a super fund or if paid to someone who isn’t a financial dependent—i.e. not your spouse or children).

Note that life insurance tends to get more expensive the older you get—I suppose because you’re more likely, statistically, to receive a payout. I was specifically told by Matt insurance gets a lot more expensive past the age of 47.

The other problem you might face the older you are relates to your medical history. In my (young) case, I broke my back in a snowboarding accident at the age of 21. So my insurance policy includes a blanket exclusion on spinal cover—with no reduction in premium, of course. Basically if my back suddenly gives way tomorrow I’m not covered but if I’m in a car accident and break my back I would be covered. Of course, some insurers may offer you a policy with increased premiums to cover the additional risk. My suggestion therefore is to get yourself insured as soon as you can, as a young person, so you at least have something in place even if health problems do present as you get older which might preclude you from becoming insured.

In the same vein, you’ll also want to be careful what you tell your GP—and what they record in your patient file (the insurer will request your patient file from your GP as part of the assessment process). One thing in particular to be mindful of is mental health—depression, anxiety, etc. If you’re having a bad week at work and mention that when you visit your GP for an unrelated reason—and let’s say your GP recommends you see a counsellor, the insurer may take that into consideration when assessing your application.

With some insurance products like SCI you can insure at indemnity value or agreed value. Indemnity value means the benefit is paid as a percentage of your earnings (i.e. 75%) whereas agreed value means your benefit is whatever fixed amount the insurer has agreed to cover.

Your premiums will also increase annually (these are called “stepped” premiums)—beyond the rate of inflation. You may have the option to pay a higher, “levelled” premium that remains constant throughout the course of your policy. If you can afford to, a levelled premium seems like the way to go to me—assuming premiums will increase beyond the levelled premium and you’ll save money. That said, part of me thinks “the house always wins”.

Our risk of death increase as we age but we conversely approach the end of our careers and our income generating potential. In other words, we should theoretically have a lessened need for insurance as we get older. My aim therefore is to wind back insurance over the next twenty years, with the assumption that we’ll be further progressed in our financial lives and less dependent on income or a large payout to set us in good stead. I’ve therefore opted for stepped premiums.

With other products you can purchase a lower-cost “rider” policy. For example, if you have a trauma rider to your life policy and claim against the trauma policy, your life policy benefit will be reduced by the amount you claim for trauma.

With the concepts out of the way, we started by defining our insurance goals, i.e. what costs would need to be paid for if one or both of us could no longer work. With my wife as the only income earner, we would firstly want to reduce debt and replace her income. With me providing child care, we would also want to cover the cost of child care if I couldn’t provide that function. Pretty simple. Anything else is a bonus—i.e. paying down property debt. In short, we calculated benefits from income, factoring in living expenses and debt. As with most things we do, we insured for modest amounts. Since income protection would be paid at 75%, I opted to go for the maximum amount we could purchase however.

From there, we were able to structure the insurance so the premiums are partly held through a superannuation account. This is accomplished through a partial rollover from our own super funds to the insurer’s zero-balance fund for the amount of the annual premium. In other words, that percentage of the premium for the policy held in the super fund is paid with super dollars that I otherwise cannot touch until I reach preservation age or retire. Yes, that money is no longer earning money for me in my super account but at least I’m not having to pay out of pocket for something as mundane as insurance (and in all honesty I consider the balance of my super as dead money… I’ll look at an SMSF one day).

In my particular case since I’m not working, I wasn’t eligible for an Own Occupation policy or SCI and all of my premiums were covered by the partial rollover. My policy covers me for life and TPD.

In the wife’s case—interestingly—the advisor recommended a different insurer and she’s covered for life, TPD, and SCI. Premiums are again paid through a combination of a partial rollover and a personal contribution. Interestingly, dear wife is with an untaxed super fund so there’s the little catch that rolling over from an untaxed fund to a taxed fund will likely result in tax being payable on the rolled over amount. This is still being resolved but it sounds like a tweak to the ownership structure will sort it out.

Finally, I should mention buying this insurance didn’t cost us anything in broker fees. The broker received a commission from the insurer which is detailed to us. I didn’t think insurance was sold this way so that was a nice cost savings and, since I know nothing about these types of insurance companies, saved me a lot of research. Yes, brokers are selling products that make them a commission which may vary from product to product but WSC Group (through their subsidiary Jigsaw Financial Planning) seemed very professional and above board in their dealings with us.

I suppose a disclaimer is also worth posting: I'm just a guy, I'm not an accountant, lawyer, solicitor, tax agent, mortgage broker, banker, financial adviser, insurance agent, land developer, builder, government agent, or anything else so I disclaim your application of anything I write here is to be applied at your own risk. What I write may be incorrect and you are best to seek your own professional advice (tax, legal, financial, and otherwise) before entering into contracts or spending your money. Your situation is unique to you and what I write here reflects my experience only. This content is not professional advice and is not tailored to your situation. I'm learning too and expect to make many, many mistakes along the way.

Enjoy,

Michael

9 - Performance Measurement

My wife is my yardstick for measuring reality. I’m admittedly a bit of a dreamer at times (with the ability to get mired in the details, mind!) but my Dr. wife, being smarter than me, is always ready to offer the checks and balances I occasionally require to cool me off when I get carried away.

Part of that is because she hasn’t learned what I’ve learned so she asks a lot of tough questions which forces me to think hard about the answers. She’s also far more conservative than I am and could probably be labelled a reluctant partner in all of this—her preferred approach to investment is to save cash in the bank.

Related to all of this, Cam McLellan over at Open Wealth, with who we’re building our first investment property, did an early podcast on the subject of what he calls “Dream Crushers”. A Dream Crusher tells you what they think (i.e. which is usually a negative, subjective view about what you’re thinking about doing) without having the experience or objective education on the particular subject to support their comments. This commentary gets you down and ultimately prevents you from taking action. The wife is effectively my lead Dream Crusher—although she usually comes around, either because I babble at her so much she wants to shut me up or because what I’m saying makes sense to her and she comes to understand my intention.

Which leads me into the subject of today’s post.

The investment strategy I had yet to—until yesterday—articulate to my beloved wife was to complete construction of IP #1 by mid-year (ish) and look at identifying and securing finance for IP #2 (and possibly IP #3) through the end of Q3 and the start of Q4 2015. This would tie in well with the fact I’d be back at work full time by that point, which the banks would hopefully look at favourably in terms of debt serviceability.

Then my wife hit me with her strategy: evaluate the performance of IP #1 before rushing forward. To me that was the sound of the cord being pulled and the lights going out. Fizzle. Zap. “No more property investing for you, dear hubby!”

We didn’t speak more on the matter initially but her comments certainly got me thinking: what is the detailed set of criteria we might use to define performance?

I’ve honestly been a little bit stumped about how to measure performance for a while now.

The easy one, of course, is a doubling in value (capital increase of 100%) every 7-11 years for good metro properties. The market will generally do this for you unless you’re adding value somehow (i.e. through renovations or infrastructure projects coming online).

Gross—or better yet—net rental yield is a good starting point as it’s a metric that’s easy to calculate and track.

Perhaps more important is the transition from negative gearing to neutral or positive gearing within a timeframe you can afford. Let’s say 1 to 5 or 7 years. This might happen in a number of different ways. Rents increase. Debt might be reduced or retired (but I wouldn’t take this approach) and interest rates might move—down like we’re seeing these days. You earned income may increase as you progress in your career, allowing for more effective tax deductions.

The conclusion that I’ve come to is performance must be measured over specified time intervals: 1 year (or less initially); 3 years; 5 years; 10 years; 15 years; 20 years. My strategy is to hold for the very long term and hence I believe performance should therefore be measured over the long term too. Hopefully in that time our property would have become positively geared and seen reliable capital growth.

Simply looking at results year on year doesn’t work for me. A property might be sitting pretty one year but take a step backwards the next before recovering again in year three, for example. The contextual economics need to be factored in to your assessment at the very least and this will happen automatically by measuring performance over a multi-year period.

More importantly, deciding to invest or not invest in a second property, which will likely be in a different suburb if not a different market (i.e. a different capital city), based on the performance of the first property isn’t an equitable comparison.

There are also other factors that I’ll say are beyond your control, for lack of a better expression. Let’s say you buy a negatively geared property in the years before you retire.  Your income is hopefully at the highest level it ever has been and so your tax deductions go further and, were you to keep working, that negatively geared property might be able to generate a positive cash flow for you in a few years.

And then you retire, hopefully with structures in place that will minimise your tax burden. Realistically your income will likely decrease in retirement. But what about those deductions?! That negatively geared property might remain that way for longer than you anticipate if you’re not able to pay down debt. At worst, it might eat into your retirement income and put a hold on your big retirement plans. Moreover that property may have seen only insignificant capital growth in the short term, making any sale not worthwhile despite the potential CGT savings.

If you’re younger, as I am, what if you’re working full-time one year but not earning at all the next? This is my reality as a stay-at-home dad. Bring forward tax deductions, yes, but that muddies the waters somewhat across the financial year boundaries.

Tenant churn might be a problem. That is, you might struggle to retain tenants, leading to more vacancy periods than another investor might have with an elderly couple who’ve been in the rental for a decade—doing their own light maintenance no less! (I read an investor profile just like this one in API). If you’ve got a strong property manager now, what happens if he or she moves on and you’re left with an average manager?

What about bad tenants? Insurance claims? Construction defects if you’re building new?

Interest rates may (will) increase, reducing positive cash flow.

Special circumstances may also intervene. Let’s say you lose a tenant for a length of time greater than you planned for because a major industry pulls out of the local market and rental demand evaporates. Or a flood leads to a broad stagnation in the market in terms of capital growth (as per Brisbane). I can only imagine what impact the earthquakes in New Zealand had on rental property there.

If you’re holding long-term, these sorts of events that occur in one year, or even over a number of years, don’t necessarily mean you’ve bought a dud. It might, if you’re being forced to subsidise a negatively geared property you easily can’t afford—in which case you’ll probably want the situation to come good within a defined time period (i.e. five to ten years); you’ll also need to decide whether that subsidy is worth the cost to you—especially if it’s not a burden. The selling costs (agent’s fees, possibly CGT, timing, etc)—coupled with the costs to acquire a replacement property (stamp duty, possibly LMI, time lost in the market)—make selling off an “underperforming” asset problematic.

I’ve written previously that time heals all problems but the flip side to this statement, of course, is that time is not on our side! Even for me as a relatively young man I’ll only get two to three decades (two to three growth cycles) before we both retire and our earned income dries up. With a goal of holding 6-10 properties at minimum, and natural constraints around how quickly we can do that, time is most definitely not on our side!

I’ll keep working through this one but I wanted to share while the subject was front of mind.

I’ve been reading a lot of Robert Kiyosaki lately so I’ll close by highlighting a recurring theme in all of his Rich Dad books: don’t buy investments that will cost you money. Speaking to us Aussies, I’m pretty sure he’d say “buy positively geared properties, mate”. That doesn’t completely solve our performance question—a positively geared property could revert back—but it’s a sound idea where it’s possible to find and buy such an asset.

I suppose a disclaimer is also worth posting: I'm just a guy, I'm not an accountant, lawyer, solicitor, tax agent, mortgage broker, banker, financial adviser, insurance agent, land developer, builder, government agent, or anything else so I disclaim your application of anything I write here is to be applied at your own risk. What I write may be incorrect and you are best to seek your own professional advice (tax, legal, financial, and otherwise) before entering into contracts or spending your money. Your situation is unique to you and what I write here reflects my experience only. This content is not professional advice and is not tailored to your situation. I'm learning too and expect to make many, many mistakes along the way.

Enjoy,

Michael

2 - Choose to Live Well

New Year’s Eve approaches and I’m feeling reflective—on the year that was and the year to come. Specifically, I’m thinking a great deal about what it means to be happy, free, and self-sustaining. I look to my family for these things as they make me happy and help me (us) to be free and, eventually, self-sustaining.

As a stay-at-home dad, I made a conscious decision to put aside, if not discard, my career in IT and take on a role unfamiliar to many men. I handed financial control—at least the income generating aspects—to my wife. Rather than being the member of our family with the highest income, my raw financial contribution in dollars and cents become zero and I spend my days wiping bums and playing house. In short, as Robert Kiyosaki might say, I stopped doing what I can do best: making money as an employee.

Has this hurt us, financially? Not really. Not yet. Not in the short term. Fortunately my wife makes a decent income on her own and this year has been financially productive with her working rurally for six months. I’m not contributing to my superannuation, of course. Had I been working, most of my income would have been put towards paying down the mortgage on our family home. These are important things to think about, particularly in regards to our future financial position and our ability to retire comfortably. My time as a productive employee is limited, after all.

Do we live any less well than than we did when we both worked? No. We’ve always lived frugally. Realistically we’ve been a single family income for a while now as my wife had twelve months off when our first child was born (only a fourth months of which, roughly, was paid). We’ve become accustomed to tightly managing our available funds and resources and while we don’t scrimp and pinch pennies as much as we once did, we by no means lead a lavish lifestyle today.

We’ve essentially chosen to live well.

Our daughter would have had to go to day care, full-time, from the age of one, if I had opted to continue working. Or my wife would have had to put on hold many, many years of education and training in the medical field to stay at home (part-time work is not a real option for her today). Sure, we could have bought some more furniture and some overhead cabinets for the kitchen and maybe another big machine for my woodworking shop but all of those things can wait. In general our long-term lifestyle goals are not much different than our reality today: no flashy cars, no big house, no designer clothes; we appreciate the simple things in life.

A second income would also make us more appealing to the banks in terms of investment loans but I know what we can and cannot afford in terms of debt service so I’ll take my business to the lender who best understands that. Notably, securing funding for this first investment property has not been a problem, primarily because of the equity in our PPOR.

I’m also somewhat fatalistic and I know I won’t live forever. I’m not living it up today, in my thirties, to counterbalance that eventuality, but I despise the idea of working myself to the bone, slumped over a desk day in and day out while life and reality pass me by. My wife would like to work part-time one day in the future (when it will be easier for her to do so) and I genuinely hope she can. She does have a significant contribution to offer society as a doctor but there’s no denying the past ten years of training has been gruesome and taken a toll on our family life.

This is the reason why I’ve opted to invest in residential property. It’s the hope of achieving financial freedom, at relatively low risk, and the promise—however distant—of making a passive income legitimately. An empire of appreciating land, buttressed by the houses on that land generating income so I don’t have to, is, for me, the pinnacle of financial success and personal financial security. There are complexities. There will be hard times ahead. There are also simplicities and there will be good times ahead too.

I spent a significant amount of time this year preparing mentally, through knowledge-building, to start executing a multi-year (multi-decade) investment strategy focused exclusively on residential property. I have minimal experience in this area. There is no doubt I will make mistakes but in pushing forward I gain experience and ultimately reduce and remove risk. As a stay-at-home dad I had a bit of spare time (not much though!) to fast-track my property investment education and I’m reliant on a number of companies to help me stay on track. I like to think I’m not idle at home (beyond the twelve-hour days running the house, that is) and that I’m contributing—financially—to my family’s long-term success and our future ability to live well.

I suppose a disclaimer is also worth posting: I'm just a guy, I'm not an accountant, lawyer, solicitor, tax agent, mortgage broker, banker, financial adviser, insurance agent, land developer, builder, government agent, or anything else so I disclaim your application of anything I write here is to be applied at your own risk. What I write may be incorrect and you are best to seek your own professional advice (tax, legal, financial, and otherwise) before entering into contracts or spending your money. Your situation is unique to you and what I write here reflects my experience only. I'm learning too and expect to make many, many mistakes along the way.

Happy new year,

Michael

The Players

Continuing from my introductory post, there's us. Who are we? I've already mentioned I'm not an accountant or a financial planner.

Me. I'm a stay at home dad, full-time. I earn nothing. I receive no Centrelink or other government benefits. I do not work part-time. I'm a stay at home dad 24 x 7 x 365, with no sick days, no real holidays--not even public holiday off, and I can't even steal stationary. I built a career in IT, working in and out of the private and public sectors for many years although I consider myself predominantly a contractor—i.e. a body for hire. The stay at home dad seed was planted very early in my career and I worked professionally for about ten years from the age of 24 before "retiring". I was earning a very healthy bit of cash before giving away my career and we've sustained a hit without that money coming in. With my wife working more than full-time this arrangement was better for us than having a young child in day care and that child has thrived. I originate from Canada but immigrated to Australia as a young man to live with my new wife and we've been married for ages now.

The missus. She is to be henceforth referred to as “dear wife” or the equivalent. She's a paediatric registrar so basically a trainee doctor (a senior trainee, mind you). So also basically a grunt—or at least she has been. The residents and registrars do all of the night shifts and the weekends and the public holidays and Christmas. If you or your kids have ever considered studying medicine, I'd say don't waste your time. The wife studied at university for six years or so and now, in her mid-thirties, she's nearly finished her formal training. Did I mention the pay is uninspiring? It is. This is a government position, essentially—and it's contract-based so essentially she's a top-tier professional who's had to put up with poor working conditions (public hospital), horrendous hours, low pay, and little real job security for about ten years. My wife is also a very good doctor, not only smart and efficient but a good communicator too.

I should say here don’t let the doctoring thing put you off. Doctor-schmocktor. Our single income is likely less than that of your typical dual-income Perth family and if you flip through a publication like Australian Property Investor you’ll see many single men and women on modest incomes achieving extraordinary things in property. Yes, my wife is a doctor but read on and you’ll see how we actually live—the workload I mention above should offer an idea. If you have a bit of money to your name or, better yet, equity in your current home, there’s so much you can do. My wife could be a plumber and me a bum and it wouldn’t make a great difference.

The Kid. She's two and half. Popped out a while ago and is starting to become expensive. It's not any single one thing but, for example, I recently tallied up the cost of our swimming lessons over a one year period and it was $700 or $800. Then there's nappies, clothes, food, toys, books, furniture, baby gym, petrol to and from activities, medication, and other medical costs. For a little person who suckled her mother until the age of two it's amazing how much money she soaks up. Good thing she's loveable and cute. We’ve got another one on the way.

Lifestyle. I'll write more about this in future posts but I include it here as a summary of who we are as a family. Essentially we started our lives together having to scrimp and save with very little financial support from our parents and we continue to live and breathe that ethos today. We spend rarely and when we do it's with hesitance and consideration. We do not live lavishly. We do not drive fancy cars (we were a single car family until this year). We don't holiday abroad apart for the very occasional trip home to Canada. We dine out occasionally. We don't drink much. Don't smoke. Don't eat meat—we're vegetarians, actually. I bought our first big flat panel TV on Gumtree used for $150 and it was only a 42 incher. Some of the furniture in our house was handed down from my wife’s parents and until this year we still had the old purple microfibre couch her brother gave us when we moved back to Perth… his dogs had slept on it prior to that and Charlotte spewed all over it while breastfeeding so it was finally due for replacement. In other words, we save—again, I'll explain how later.

In a nutshell, that's us. I’ll no doubt expand on the above in future posts.

I suppose a disclaimer is also worth posting: I'm just a guy, I'm not an accountant, lawyer, solicitor, tax agent, mortgage broker, banker, financial adviser, insurance agent, land developer, builder, government agent, or anything else so I disclaim your application of anything I write here is to be applied at your own risk. What I write may be incorrect and you are best to seek your own professional advice (tax, legal, financial, and otherwise) before entering into contracts or spending your money. Your situation is unique to you and what I write here reflects my experience only. I'm learning too and expect to make many, many mistakes along the way.

Enjoy,
Michael