Pack of retirement cards are solidly stacked against women

Published Aug 12, 1998

Share

To mark "Women's Week" Personal Finance would like to make a contribution to the empowerment of women in broader society by publishing an extract from a book written on retirement by Personal Finance columnists, Bruce Cameron and Magnus Heystek. The extract deals with the disadvantageous position of most women at retirement and what you need to do to rectify your situation.

Many women, in what are supposed to be their golden years, find themselves destitute

and abandoned, living in hovels and barely able to feed themselves.

The causes for this include:

* Women live, on average, longer than men so they need more funds set aside to ensure a

comfortable income. At age 60 a woman can on average expect to live 3,6 years longer than

a man;

* Divorce. Many women still go to the altar believing they will live happily ever after

and that they will be provided for by a doting husband - but almost one in two marriages

ends in divorce. Divorce can end in poverty for a woman because she has been out of the

job market and cannot find employment;

* The various marriage contracts available in South Africa affect how much a woman may

have available for retirement funding. This is because assets taken into the marriage and

built up during the marriage are valued and accrued to the different parties in different

ways.

It is important that you understand the manner in which you are being married, for

example in or out of community of property, as well as how assets you have accrued before

your marriage and during your marriage will be recorded. You should get proper legal

advice from a lawyer you know and trust before getting married.

It may seem that a marriage contract has nothing to do with retirement when you are

thinking more of children and a new home. Retirement most definitely has an effect on

marriage;

* Women most often have custody of children from a divorce and incur additional costs

not covered by alimony payments. South Africa also does not have a very sound record in

the enforcement of support payments. This means a mother has to use funds that would have

been saved to support her family;

* Women generally earn less than men and are often employed in casual jobs, which do

not have retirement scheme benefits;

* Career breaks to raise a family are still common. This can mean no income and no

contributions to retirement funds while not working, unless you are merely taking

maternity leave. Career breaks also limit promotion prospects with the knock-on effect on

earnings and retirement savings;

* The glass ceiling, which many women still struggle to break through on the corporate

promotion ladder, again limits retirement savings; and

* The retirement age for women is often younger than for men. In 1995 legislation was

updated and the retirement age for both sexes was made 55. But the taxman has put the

updated legislation on hold until March 1, 2000. Until then a woman retains the option to

retire from her pension fund at the age of 50, five years earlier than a man. It is not a

good idea to take advantage of this concession.

The most damaging impact on a woman's financial hopes is made by the extra years that

she can expect to live and the average of six years she takes off to have a family. The

two reasons combined are a poverty trap.

It works like this. Let us take two women (Ms A and Ms B) and these assumptions. Both

start working at age 21. Both put an initial R50 a month aside for retirement funding.

Ms A continues to work without a break until she retires at age 60. Ms B takes six

years off to raise a family at age 28.

During the six years Ms B makes no pension fund contributions. Assume when she resumes

work her contributions start at the same level being paid by Ms A at that stage.

Using this scenario Ms B has reduced her working life by 15 percent. (The six years

taken off to raise a family is an average arrived at in Britain. Similar figures are not

available in South Africa). These six years could reduce Ms B's retirement capital by a

dramatic one third.

Here are various permutations of annually compounded interest rates and salary

inflation.

THE BUILD UP OF RETIREMENT CAPITAL:

Scenario

One:

Annual compounded interest:

10%

Salary inflation:

10%

Ms A:

R917 982

Ms B:

R776 754

In this scenario those six years will cost

Ms B R141 128 or 18,1 percent in accumulated retirement capital.

size="2">Scenario Two:

Annual compounded interest:

15%

Salary Inflation:

10%

Ms A:

R2 467 934

Ms B:

R1 953 865

In this scenario those six years will cost

Ms B R514 069 or 26,3 percent in accumulated retirement capital.

As far as annual compounded interest and

salary inflation increases are concerned this is the more probable scenario.

Scenario

Three:

Annual compounded interest:

10%

Salary Inflation:

15%

Ms A:

R2 413 687

Ms B:

R2 197 629

In this scenario those six years will cost

Ms B R216 058 or 9,8 percent in accumulated retirement capital. This is the least likely

scenario.

THE PENSION

Now comes the next hit. Let us again assume the two use their entire retirement capital

to purchase an annuity (monthly pension).

This time we will also bring Mr C into the calculation and assume Mr C has the same

amount of accumulated retirement capital as Ms A in each case. We also assume that all

three are in the same state of health etc.

ANNUITIES (MONTHLY PENSION) RECEIVE

size="2">Scenario One:

Person

Retirement Capital

Annuity

Ms A:

R917 982

R11 011

Ms B:

R776 754

R 9 315

Mr C:

R917 982

R11 756

size="2">Scenario Two:

Person

Retirement Capital

Annuity

Ms A:

R2 467 934

R29 623

Ms B:

R1 953 865

R23 450

Mr C:

R2 467 934

R31 627

Scenario

Three:

Person

Retirement Capital

Annuity

Ms A:

R2 413 687

R28 972

Ms B:

R2 197 629

R26 377

Mr C:

R2 413 687

R30 931

(The annuity figures were supplied by Old Mutual Actuaries and Consultants and were

valid on December 12, 1997. The following assumptions were made in all cases: The

annuities were single life compulsory purchase annuities. Retirement age for all three is

61 next birthday).

Taking the most likely scenario (Scenario Two). The result is that those six years that

Ms B took off to raise a family have cost her dearly. Mr C will receive 34,9 percent more

as a pension than Ms B.

The longer you take off to raise a family the worse the situation.

But even Ms A, who worked for the same number of years as Mr C, now faces the prospect

of an income 6,8 percent less than Mr C. will receive, because she is likely to live

longer than Mr C.

Life assurance companies argue that they are not discriminating against women. The

pension paid out will be exactly the same amount on average as a total amount paid out to

men.

Retirement - the amazing and scary truth is available from bookshops or

directly from Worth Publishing at 011 799 8100.

Related Topics: