How Much Super Should You Really Have at Age 40?

I'm trying to understand the amount of Super people should have compared to what they do.

Comments

  •  

    wow at these 400K+ super balance people… I feel poor…

    • +2 votes

      Don't feel poor, if they die before age 60, they won't ever get to touch or use it.

      •  

        You sound like you'd be fun to talk to at parties.

      •  

        Dont feel poor about the people who already earned enough to make 400k plus in super?

    •  

      Ask on whirlpool and they will all have 800K+

  • +1 vote

    I moved to Australia at 28, first job.
    Now 35, super $66k.
    Should I be worried?

    Possible scenarios 1: I might die before reaching that access age 65/67, whaever.
    Possible scenarios 2: Live and have over mill, but don't live long enough to exhaust.
    Possible scenarios 3: I actually live to use the whole lot, and run out.
    BTW, that me/I include my wife too, she started working a year ago here, not sure about super balance.

    I have two kids, and if they don't take care of my frail end, I should have died before reaching that 65/67 anyway.
    So, many unknowns.
    No point stressing over things unknown.
    Do what is reasonable. Be mindful, that's all.

  • +1 vote

    came to Australia 12 years ago, Im 52 and have 5k in super parked with the ATO. I don't care about super at all. I have property and other investments.

  •  

    37 and 6 figs in super. I’m not banking on super but in other investments.

    Most of it is property which has been performing quite well for me.

    •  

      Property will continue to be one of the best investments going forward, still very scarce supply even with a pandemic going on.

  •  

    I understand this is a very complicated one and as everybody has mentioned that it totally depends on many factors. Let me try to give you an oversimplified way to look at it.

    Currently you get $24,770 per year as age pension even if you have no super (which maybe subject to changes), and on top of that the government basically calculates how much super you have accumulated to how many years they expect average person to live and divides it by the number of years and you get that added on top of the pension. So the more you have contributed towards super, the more you shall get after say you're 67 years old. My general opinion would be to start stashing in as much as you possibly can because that is currently the best way to invest and if it grows after 27 years, you may have a more comfortable life than with just age pension.

    As said many times, it is an extremely complicated topic and many things change with time. So treat it as a general recommendation but not as financial advise.

    •  

      Where's this information from? The pension is asset tested and your super is included in assets. For those that own a home the full pension for a couple you need to have under $401k in assets (family home is excluded from this test) or for a single it's just $268k. For those that don't own a home the limits are higher. Above that the pension is reduced. So where's this info about adding on to pension based on super accumulated?

  •  

    I think a majority misread the post or read too much between the lines.

    I'm not asking for advice. I'm trying to get perspective. My job pays well, places me miles ahead in the average amount of Super according to the websites people post.

    I'm not 40, have close to 400k super. 80K mortgage. 50k in commsec shares to play. a fully paid off unit.

    I'm asking if this is a realistic situation. compared to many other people I sit outside of a bell curve probably top 10%.

    I'm simply trying to understand the differences in numbers and potential causes of the differences I.e., was it opportunity, handwork or a combination of both?

    • +1 vote

      Sounds like you're in a very comfortable position, you've got much more than myself in my mid 30's.

      That kind of cash from the "handwork" you've been doing though… must be a pro! ;)

    •  

      Luck

    •  

      I'm asking if this is a realistic situation.

      You are well ahead of the curve. Top 10%, if not top 3%.

    •  

      I didnt see anyone give you an answer relevant to you. At age 40 you should have 3x your SG wages in Super, so if you are on a decent income $400K sounds about right, although you may have benefited from higher SG contribs and >7% returns on savings. EG age 20 - 30 receiving ~10% of your (lower but increasing) wages (less tax + earnings) = 1x salary in Super. The next 10 years @ ~7% net returns will double that 1x balance + 10 years of 10% contribs = 3x salary. By 50 it should ideally be 6 - 7x salary. If you have a break or drop in contributions, or invest in a more conservative option or use Super to pay for insurance, etc then this number may be lower, or if you put more in/get 10% avg return then maybe higher. But if you put nothing into Super from 20 - 30 that missing 1x salary balance will cost you 6x salary by the time you are 60 or 12x (!!!) by 70 (nb not in todays dollars) = compounding interest is awesome with time, playing catch up later is hard.

  •  

    I do not even know if i would reach 40 😷