Asset Distribution mix to give a consistent income in retirement?

My current projections with adding one additional IP is as follows:
~70% Super
~30% Property.

 

Estimate 70% rent 30% super

 

Wow lots of people relying on super.....

 

Estimated

~50% rent
~50% LICs

When super kicks in
~33% rent
~33% LICs
~33% LICs in super

 

how did you get the Bungarribee one? i live there and watched them getting built, they are now mostly occupied. we call them the projects haha, but seriously most ppl living there seem ok. one or two bogans...

 

Well I'm projecting, if I work till 60 (27 years away I know), my super alone will comfortably fund my retirement (circa $100K income p.a. for 25 years... at today's dollars i.e. doesn't include inflation).

My humble property portfolio that I plan to grow will just give me more options i.e. retire earlier or let the wife take more time off with the kids.

 

100% rent
0% super (bugger waiting another 25 years!)

I've often wondered if it'll be better to sell some properties, take the hit on fees and taxes, and invest the money in index funds...

 

Wife included.
Currently 90% property.
1.5% lic's
8.5% super


By 50(retirement age) Will balance it out I hope. Unless I get wiped out.
40% property
48% lic's
12% super.

 

At this stage of life 35 very soon, I ignore super. My balance is extremely low as a self employed person for the last 6 years and livin overseas for a couple prior to that I haven't had much contributions. But As I'm about to start working for the many again it should rapidly increase for another 5 years before I check out of the rat race ideally and work for myself again. It's never been part of my plan really morenof a safety net. Once I'm sufficient passive income ideally by 45, then I will start focusing on it a bit more for the tax free benefits it creates. But to aim to retire by 65 or 75 as it will likely be by my time just doesn't do it for me.

 

I don't have realistic figure yet, but ideally something balanced
- 30-40% property
- 30% dividend
- 30% cash TD

 

Have you worked out after fees & taxes what gives a better return?

Not sure about you but I remember when I started with property I eased myself into it, bought one and kept paying down debt and with time you get used to it. Then buy more etc etc and the portfolio builds as does your comfort level and understanding and sleep at night factor.
I'm totally new at shares and just started buying over the last couple weeks, reading, learning, asking dumb questions, and it's starting to fall into place but I need a lot more time to get comfortable with this type of investment as I did with property. So if you do start, perhaps start with something small just to ease yourself into it. And see if you can still sleep at night knowing your money is either green or red for the day hahaha. Kidding, don't watch the unit prices, but you will lol.

 

Here we go guys, look at these numbers (Source RP Data)
No surprises here


The reality is that residential real estate dominates all forms of investment in Australia

Investment Markets in Australia by total Value

Residential Property
$5.5 Trillion

Superannuation
$1.8 Trillion

Stock Market

$ 1.6 Trillion

Commercial Property
$0.7 Trillion

 

Those numbers make no sense. What is 'Superannuation $1.8 trillion'?

Why do people (RP Data) continue to think super is an 'asset class' or in this case 'investment market'?

 

If you set up your own SMSF you can buy property, shares etc. and basically manage/over see this. I hold 3 properties in my SMSF.... We love property in Australia

Also can be used as a strategy to reduce tax.... I am not an expert in this area but @Terry_w is.
I leave the strategizing to my accountant.

 

Yep, so superannuation = investments in residential property, commercial property and shares (keeping it simple).

There's no such asset class as 'superannuation', it's merely a vehicle for investing in the same markets an ordinary person does.

So why is it a separate 'investment market' per RP Data's numbers? The answer is that it shouldn't be, it should instead be part of the other actual investment classes depending on what the fund invests in.

For example, say I own $2 million of residential property in my personal name, and $2 million of residential property in my SMSF.

Per RP Data I have:

$2m residential property
$2m superannuation

But this is wrong. I actually have:

$4m of residential property, half of which is held in a superannuation fund.

 

Perhaps its because it is treated differently in terms of how it is taxed, regulations, guidelines etc.

 

Maybe, but $1 invested in the residential property market by myself personally is the same as $1 invested in the market via superannuation. At the end of the day, $2 is invested in that market and should be reflected as such in RP Data's figures. Listing superannuation as another 'market' is just weird

Oh, and not having a shot at you personally btw, just at the RP Data figures - incase it doesn't come across that way! I agree there is a definite bias towards property in Aus (which is what I think the numbers are trying to illustrate).

 

Yes, we love property in Australia... the power of Leverage is a big one, however with finance tightening this may be difficult moving forward?

 

Now we know it's wrong @Beano portfolio is at least $1 Triilion.