Key Post Milestones to hit the Lifetime Pension Fund limit at age 60?

For the average person there doesn't seem to be much in the way of tax efficient equity investments outside of the pension (I'm not a financial planner though). Aggressively saving early into a pension sits well with me (I know there is disagreement on this approach in the forum), I get the impression that the next government sees private pensions as a luxury to be taxed and I expect significant negative changes on how much you can contribute - so best to make the most of it while we can in my opinion rather than assuming you will be able to make up for it in the future. Taxing the funds actually in pensions might also be attempted, but I think that is politically much more difficult. It's my kids I feel sorry about, but that's a different debate.

When starting a similar spreadsheet some time ago I choose three forecasts - a low returns estimate (about 2% above inflation), a "likely" estimate (4%), and a high returns estimate (8%). There are some good articles out there about how to choose good forecast rates - the CAPE based ones make sense to me, and I've tilted my own pension funds towards the US as it has a more equity-friendly culture. The other factor to consider in the spreadsheet was the withdrawal rate, and the closer you get to retirement the more important this becomes.

A final consideration on the ER side is that traditional pension fund advice typically wind risk down as you approach retirement. That might make sense at 65, but is arguably not so sensible at 50 (or at least you may want to keep a high equity %). It's an interesting area with not all that much I can find written in Ireland about it, much of what is online is from the US.
 
@interested21 How much contributions go in? A total of 8% of salary?

I have run calcs for €766.67 a month, increasing at 3% a year. Fund growth is 5%. Fund value in 26 years is €907,000.

To reach €2m by 56 under your assumptions, you need to contribute €2,040 a month for 26 years, with a starting fund of €70,000
 

How unlikely is it actually?

The situation to avoid is leaving 40% tax relief on the table for the 10 years before retirement because you have reached/will reach the SFT + 150k at retirement age.

If you end up in that situation, you have made your younger life less secure/comfortable unnecessarily.
 
I'm modelling for contributions maxing the tax relief, so 20% in 30s etc, plus employer match. This starts at €2300 pm and increase with salary growth (so more employer match) and increased available tax relief over time.

You can see the workings in the 2nd sheet of my spreadsheet
 
This is too conservative in my view. A government body will always be conservative for fear of being blamed for poor returns after the fact. Here is the S&P annualised return with dividends re-invested adjusted for inflation.

20 year period endingAnnual inflation-adjusted return with dividends reinvested
July 20227.0%
July 20125.6%
July 200210.8%
July 19924.9%
July 19821.3%
Average5.9%

The average over the period is basically 6%, add 2% for inflation and take 1% off for fees and 7% growth over 20 years and €100k at the start is €386k at the end. Even the very worst 20-year period of the five sampled saw an annual inflation-adjusted return of 1.3%. Again with same formula of 1% less for fees and 2% more for inflation you are at 3.3% which is not much below the Pensions Authority's 3.5%. So I really think their advice is very conservative.

In any case for an ambitious 30-year-old who wants you have €2m by 50 your investment horizon is far, far more than 20 years and more like 50 years as you will still be drawing down long into retirement. Sequence of returns is an issue discussed at length elsewhere the the sooner you start drawdown the more you are exposed to it. Over the five 20-year periods above the difference is between 1.3% and 10.8% - when compounded those differences are an order of magnitude apart! So I really don't think anyone can aim to hit the SFT by 50 with any certainty. All you can do is max contributions, keep fees low, and stay in all equities.

Don't forget as well that the more you have the more tolerant of risk you can have. I would advise someone with a €200k fund to choose "lifestyling" but not someone with €2m. Once they can tune out the noise then they should remain all in equities, ideally forever.
 
How unlikely is it actually?
I think mathematically its certainly possible but requires a lot of assumptions to go your way. If we start these calculations at 30 then you need:
  • A good pot to start with (high 5 figures at a minimum)
  • Earning 6-figures at 30
  • Continued investment growth
  • Continued uninterrupted career progression
  • A good employer match along the way
  • The ability to fund the rest of your lifestyle with the remaining cash
Losing any one of these assumptions makes it increasingly unlikely.

The situation to avoid is leaving 40% tax relief on the table for the 10 years before retirement
The alternative is leaving 40% tax relief on the table now. I'd rather max out my relief now and potentially make no contributions later in life, than spread out that relief over longer and contribute more over the lifetime of the pension accumulation.

If you end up in that situation, you have made your younger life less secure/comfortable unnecessarily.
I agree that we shouldn't be scraping by to fund our pension, but I think we're mostly protected from this by the age limits to pension relief. Unless saving for a house deposit, most 20/30 year olds should be able to put 15-20% of their gross into their pension without making their life unnecessarily uncomfortable. Especially if they're the kind of high-earners and financially savvy people that are thinking about their pensions SFT!

I follow some UK finance subreddits and see them talking about the ability to "salary sacrifice" huge portions of their income towards their pension. For the sake of my own sanity I'm glad I don't have this option!
 
  1. What milestones should one hit (at ages 30/35/40/45) if you'd intend to hit the SFT limit at age 50?

Sorry if I've missed something, but what's the precise point in achieving the SFT limit so far ahead of retirement?

Tommy asked a very valid question here.

Maybe the 50 is a typo and RMGC meant 60?

The advice here is usually to max your pension contributions but that is often given in isolation.

Paying down a high mortgage gives you more resilience early on. But it has downsides
  1. You might miss out on making contributions later because the annual contribution limits are reduced
  2. You might get hit by the use it or lose it rules.
On the other hand, if you max your pension and the SFT is reduced, you have made very tax inefficient pension contributions.

But some people seem to have very high mortgages and interest rates are rising. This makes big mortgages riskier than usual.

Most people will not have €2.15m in their fund by age 65. So for most people, the original question is moot.

Certainly, I don't think anyone should be aiming to have €2.15m in their fund by age 50. Unless they are in their late 40s and determined to retire at 50.

Brendan
 
Taxing the funds actually in pensions might also be attempted, but I think that is politically much more difficult.
Remember we'd actually had this done, in recent memory too. I'd be surprised if it doesn't happen again - and I say that as someone who is maxing out contributions.
 
OP is back!

I wanted to confirm that the intent behind the initial post was indeed to determine under which reasonable assumptions one could reach the current SFT by age 50 - with the intent then being the option of early retirement, if not early retirement itself.
That could mean picking other careers/travelling full time/picking a (different) hobby to do full time for a couple of years at a time without monetary rewards / financial pressure factoring in those decisions.

I essentially equate reaching the SFT as not needing to work anymore (if I still wanted to, that's a different question). A variant of FYIFV, if you wish.


We would be looking at a 500k lump sum mostly tax free (or tax reduced) amount of money that can be withdrawn plus a 4% annual SWR (which I understand from sequence of returns analysis that would work in over 90% of cases from historical data) on the remaining 1,650,000 - that works out to 84k a year (let's say that's worth 60k a year in today's money after inflation adjusments, which might not be conservative enough given recent inflation).

I could also always adjust the withdrawal rate down for a few years if needed since I would have the lump sum buffer available.
The amount above, 60k/year (3500 a month after taxes), assuming a fully paid off mortgage by that time, would be more than enough to meet one's needs (and pending one's family isn't too large).


Certainly the goal wouldn't be to leave the money sitting there not earning anything for another 10-15 years - that would really make no sense to me either.


You're using the SFT as a benchmark for Amount Needed to Comfortably Fund a Retirement at Fifty.

That may or may not be the case for you. I wouldn't let the threshold wholly guide your thinking and decisons on this.
Great point! I'm coming at this from the angle of a pension vehicle being the most effective means of getting there (and assuming a paid of mortgage by that point as well). Happy to hear of other avenues and approaches though!


I'm not a gambling type, have always stayed away from crypto and stock picking (mostly), however winding risk down in terms of moving between asset classes never made much sense to me. That's a discussion for a different thread, however I wouldn't see myself switching from equities as I reach retirement age - and continuing to own a (small) piece of a profitable business (of many businesses, in practice), through the stock market would certainly be my preferred approach.


I concur that is it very unlikely, unless assuming some very high, consistent returns (10% CAGR at the very least in my case) and continued contributions at the relief limit + employer matching. I would also not expect the SFT to get adjusted up for inflation.
Shiller's CAPE ratios aren't giving me great hope for future inflation-adjusted returns either so there's that too.

For the sake of this thought exercise, let's assume that there is excess capital to be used - that wouldn't affect security/comfort unnecessarily at a younger age.


I'm thinking exactly the same - as I would always pick a higher compounding rate between two otherwise equal options and given a long enough period of time.
While I acknowledge risk profiles are very different, I do believe investing early in something that has a chance to yield 6% CAGR over paying off debt that's fixed at 2% (and further reduced in practice by inflation) is the better option, for me.
That is, I try to allocate the largest amount of capital to where the highest compounding rate can be achieved.
That really should say: risk-adjusted compounding rate - but I'm not as qualified in assessing risk, which is where Brendan tries to bring us back to reality usually.


Maybe the 50 is a typo and RMGC meant 60?
Not a typo, picking 50 is an incredible aggressive target - and certainly not one that is attainable for me - pending a sustained miracle in the equity markets and very favourable circumstances in all other areas, from employment, to family, health, housing, elections and inflation.

This is why this is a thought exercise and should be treated as such.

To re-iterate - reaching the SFT for me would mean instant retirement.

Certainly, I don't think anyone should be aiming to have €2.15m in their fund by age 50. Unless they are in their late 40s and determined to retire at 50.
What if I'm in my 30s and want to retire at 50? It's worth attempting to plot a course - even if just to understand what the gap is and what it would take to close it.


If one is already maximizing pension contributions, has the mortgage down to a comfortable amount and an ability to invest more - the above is an exercise in maths and probability as to what growth curves are possible, and which ones would result in a very comfortable retirement at different points in time/at different ages. It's certainly out of my hands at this point.


@Brendan Burgess - would you call it a failure in financial planning if I reach SFT at 50 and then change my mind and decide not to retire at that point?

Losing the ability to continue to contribute to a pension in a tax advantageous manner would certainly be a moot point at that stage for me (as would be a lot of other financial concerns). If that were to happen - that would have been due to very high compounding - and that meant I reached that sum with a much lower contribution in net terms that would have been required at a later age - that is still very much a win in my book.

Wouldn't this give one the same financial stability that fully owning one's house is? Guaranteed future income certainly feels to me safer financially than just owning one's PDH.
 
Thanks @interested21 for this.

If you have a pot if 1m at age 50.

Am i right in saying you can take 200 tax free?

And put 800k into a fund that pays approx 32k (4%) per annum for rest of life?
From what I understand, the 4% in this context is imputed distribution, meaning:
This only kicks in at age 61 as far as I know. So you can take 200k tax free plus 300k at 20% at age 50 (if your pension allows), and then in the year you turn 61 you will be taxed on the ARF value at the time as if you're taking 4% on the pot from then on. So most people read this as an obligation to take 4% per annum.
I'm not an expert at all, the above is what I have picked up here and am happy to be corrected.
 
@Brendan Burgess - would you call it a failure in financial planning if I reach SFT at 50 and then change my mind and decide not to retire at that point?

Absolutely. This would be a failure in most cases.

You have probably made unnecessary sacrifices to achieve a meaningless objective.

You will continue to work in most cases. Your fund will continue to accumulate beyond the SFT and it will be taxed at a penalty rate. Your employer will still be making pension contributions which will be taxed at a penal rate.

Maybe "failure" is too strong a word, but it's certainly very inefficient.

The most efficient approach is have €2.15m in your fund on the day you retire. If you are now 30, it's unlikely that you will want to retire at 50. If you do, you are in the wrong job and you should be addressing that instead.

If you wanted a funding plan for €2.15m at age 60, that would be reasonable enough and you could adjust it later.

The dilemma is that if you are 45 and plan to retire at 50, it would be very hard to get to the €2.15m. So that would be inefficient too.

So what is the right strategy?
Assume conservative investment returns - maximum 4%
Assume continuation of current tax limits.
Pay down your mortgage to a very comfortable level.
Max your pension contributions now.

Review the strategy every 5 years. A big increase in investment returns or a dramatic stockmarket fall, may cause a change in strategy.

Brendan
 
I have taken interested's spreadsheet and changed the growth rate to 4%. You hit €2.5m at age 60 so that is ok. You can adjust later if the returns are much higher.

 
But i suppose this begs the question what should you do if you have reviewed after 5 years and you might breach SFT (my pension average return over the last 10 years was 7%). I do have a very generous employer match.

Using the calculation provided (thanks for that!) and Brendan's 4% return, i hit 1m at 50 and 2.4m at 60. If i use my estimate 7% i'm at 2.1m at 55. I have used a more conservative 2% salary growth. (However during this time i have been very lucky in my career and my salary has effectively x7).

Again this may be too early to call given the unbelievable volatility in the market. Plan currently is to max all available tax benefits (while they are available from the current government) using SFT as guide and then derisk my pension should i need to? What does everyone think? Is that the most efficient strategy?
 
using SFT as guide and then derisk my pension should i need to? What does everyone think? Is that the most efficient strategy?
I think de-risking is less necessary the bigger your fund is.

If I had an all-equities fund of €500k at 60 I would be nervous of a sequence of bad returns before 65 and would de-risk a bit. A 30% loss before 65 would really hurt. If I had a fund of €1.5m I would be less concerned, 30% would hurt but I would still have a comfortable retirement. I would de-risk less, or probably not at all.

People forget that your fund has to generate returns well into your retirement too, not just while you are contributing! The more you have the more you should keep in equities as the consensus is that in the long run they will provide better returns.
 
I think de-risking is less necessary the bigger your fund is.
The paradox is that a larger fund implies a greater capacity to take risk but less need to do so.

If you've "won the game" why keep playing?

Personally, I think the SFT is a bit of a non-issue for the vast majority of folks.

If you're lucky enough to amass €2.15m in your pension fund a few years before you are ready to retire, it's hardly a disaster. Just go to cash and stop contributing over and above any employer match.

Or retire early! There's no SFT applicable to ARFs.
 
Personally, I think the SFT is a bit of a non-issue for the vast majority of folks
I'd agree, it's a relatively small group of people that this would impact. And in all likelihood, if some has amassed that kind of pension fund by early 50's then they are likely to have a lot of wealth outside of the pension too.

Or retire early! There's no SFT applicable to ARFs.
But in the hypothetical scenario, is retiring part of the pension the solution for the few that may hit the SFT in their early 50's?

For example, if someone at 50 has a pot of €1m and they have no desire to retire but will move jobs, should they retire the fund and convert it to an ARF?

Does this give them scope to contribute another €1m in contributions instead of the growth in the original fund "eating up" the remaining threshold?
 
Anyone got an opinion on the IL1-5 funds?
I had an old pension from my last company, that was put into an Irish Life IL-4 fund. pathetic growth over the last 8 years, gone from €174K invested as a lump sum to only €255k today……should I move it?
 
Curious about this as well if anyone has any thoughts on it.