Max & Ursula (Pre-retirees seeking clarity and retirement planning)
When Max and Ursula first sat down with me, they were seeking guidance on their retirement prospects and wanted to consider how best to meet their goals.
Both were 63, still working, paying down the mortgage, contributing to super, and believed that they would need to work until 75 as they felt their assets would not last their lifetime.
Max was earning around $150,000 per year and Ursula around $130,000, and together they had built approximately $800,000 in super. They also had a $300,000 home loan.
They came to me wanting clarity around a number of areas: reducing debt, minimising tax, reviewing their super investments, and making sure Max’s transition-to-retirement strategy was appropriate. They were also seriously considering a $1 million investment property and wanted to understand whether it would genuinely improve their position, and whether it would fit within their budget.
Clarity changes everything
One of the biggest breakthroughs came early.
They believed they needed around $90,000 per year in retirement. But when we carefully worked through their actual spending, the reality was very different—they were living on closer to $140,000 per year.
Once we anchored their plan to a realistic spending figure, we adjusted their retirement target to $140,000 per year. Now, for the first time, their strategy was based on what they actually needed to enjoy their retirement.
Seeing the future properly through financial modelling
We then built detailed modelling over a range of scenarios.
We analysed retirement timing, debt reduction, super strategies, investment options, and different scenarios—including their potential investment property. We also identified something important: three likely inheritances they hadn’t factored into their thinking.
When all of this came together, the result surprised them.
They didn’t need to work until 75.
With the right structure and discipline, they could retire at age 70—five years earlier than expected—while still maintaining their current lifestyle.
That was a powerful moment. The idea of retirement shifted from “maybe one day” to something tangible and achievable, and much sooner.
The property decision
The $1 million investment property was a major consideration.
We modelled the cash flow and showed that while it was possible, it would tighten their position significantly—less flexibility, more pressure, and additional risk at a time when they were nearing retirement.
Most importantly, the modelling showed they didn’t need it to achieve their goals. That changed the conversation entirely. Instead of feeling like they should proceed, they could ask whether they actually wanted to.
They chose not to move forward—and felt immediate relief. Not because property is a poor investment option, but because it wasn’t necessary for them and they were happy to maintain their current cashflow and spending as it was.
Strategic improvements, tax savings and investment review
We then focused on improving their current structure.
A key opportunity emerged through detailed questioning, when I asked Ursula if she had ever ceased and employment arrangement from age 60. She had, this meant Ursula had met a condition of release and her superannuation was accessible to her. This allowed us to move $450,000 of her super into an account-based pension.
That shift meant her investment earnings on that portion moved from being taxed (typically up to 15%) to tax-free.
Using simple numbers, we considered the below:
- $450,000 earning 6% = $27,000
- Tax at 15% = $4,050 per year
- Tax in pension phase = $0
- Potential tax savings per year = $4,050
That’s over $4,000 per year saved, compounding over time, increasing their retirement and retirement prospects.
We also implemented the following concessional contributions:
- Max: $60,000
- Ursula: $40,000
We carefully reviewed their concessional contributions carry forward provisions to identify the maximum amounts they could add, and as they didn’t need the pension payments from his TTR, or her Account based pension, these were used along with some savings they had.
Their next tax savings were significant. At their income levels (32% to 39% marginal rate including Medicare), compared to 15% contributions tax they saved:
- Max: $11,000 tax saving
- Ursula: $7,000 tax saving
- Total: $18,000 in one year
That’s real money redirected from tax into their future and was used to reduce their home loan balance.
Each year they also contributed up to the maximum concessional contribution amount to further reduce tax and build wealth.
We also reviewed their superannuation and TTR investments and reduced overall product costs by approximately $5,300 per year, removed underperforming funds, and aligned their investments to their comfort levels for risk, into approved and well researched investments.
Debt and geared investments
We aligned their strategy so tax savings, surplus cash, and contributions all supported one key outcome, reducing debt.
With this structure in place, they are on track to repay their mortgage entirely by age 70.
We also explored a gearing strategy to give them flexibility to invest into a diversified growth investment for wealth accumulation and tax deductibility of interest.
For example:
- $200,000 loan at 7% = $14,000 interest
- Tax benefit at 39% = $5,460
This gave them optional strategies—without forcing them into unnecessary risk. It also allowed them to borrow to invest, but at a much lower level than the investment property they were considering.
The value of advice
There were clear financial benefits:
- $18,000 in tax savings (contributions)
- $4,000+ per year tax savings (pension structure)
- $5,300 product fee savings
- Interest savings through debt reduction
- Avoidance of an unnecessary $1M property decision
However, the most significant value of advice wasn’t just financial.
Before advice:
- They felt uncertain
- Believed they needed to work until 75
- Were considering strategies because, ‘We feel we have to do something to make our retirement work’.
After advice:
- They knew they could retire at 70 and their assets would last their lifetime, this was a full 5 years prior to their original intention
- They understood their real spending
- They were confident in their superannuation investments and their need for quality growth assets
- They could continue to maintain their current spending
- They felt confident in their direction
They moved from guessing… to knowing what their future looked like and could begin to realistically plan how they would enjoy their retire lifestyle together.
General Advice Warning: The information in this article and the links has been prepared for general information purposes only and does not take into account your personal objectives, financial situation or needs. It is not intended to provide commercial, financial, investment, accounting, tax or legal advice. You should, before you make any decision regarding any information, strategies, or products mentioned in this article, consult a professional financial advisor to consider whether it is suitable and appropriate for you and your personal needs and circumstances. Before making a decision to acquire a financial product, you should obtain and read the Product Disclosure Statement (PDS) relating to that product, together with the Target Market Determination (TMD).
