Skip Navigation
 

How To Save For Retirement

My latest blog

Is It Right To Reclaim Bank Charges?

Published in Retirement and Pensions on 13 June 2008

Read about the most Foolish funds to invest in and learn also the difference between 'saving' and 'investing' for retirement.

I wrote a piece last week that was a one-year update on my 2007 series The Four-Step Guide To A Comfortable Retirement. The guide shows you how to work out what you personally should save in order to retire with the level of comfort you want.

Now I'm going to explain how to save for retirement.

Wait, let me be more specific. We often use the phrase ‘saving for retirement' when really what most of us do is ‘invest for retirement'.

The difference between saving and investing

When you save money (for example, in a savings account) you get a safe, certain return, paid as interest. Hopefully you'll get a good return, but that'll only happen if you've chosen a decent savings account.

When you invest, your money is at risk. What's more, the value of your investments, and therefore the size of the pot of money you've invested, goes up and down. In the short term, (say, five or so years) you could quite easily lose money.

On the other hand, provided you're not reckless with your investment choices, you can expect that, over the long-term and despite the volatility, your investments will outperform money kept in savings.

Let's use some figures to expand on this. Let's say that your savings do remarkably well, earning you what would be an excellent 4% a year over 20 years. You save £100pm, so you've put away £24,000. Add on the interest and you have £37,000.

Now let's say you invest for 20 years. If you haven't been reckless with your investment decisions then you might expect to get 7% (after charges and in ‘today's prices', which is an expression I explained here). It might not sound like much more than 4%, but if you invested £100pm for 20 years you'd have £53,000. That is £16,000 more than if you'd saved at 4%.

Even if your average investment return drops to 6%, you'd beat cash savings by £10,000 (total £47,000), and a poor 5% investment return would still beat cash by £5,000 (total £42,000).

The nub of this is that, if you want to save your way to retirement, you'll need to throw a lot more money at it than if you invest.

So how should we invest for retirement?

To secure our retirement, most of us do three things:

  • We invest in shares (often through pension schemes, but increasingly with ISAs).*
  • We pay off our mortgages.
  • We work, pay National Insurance tax, and thus get ourselves a modest state pension.

Does this work?

Yes, I think it's a good combination (although who knows what we'll get from the state in the future). What I've been building towards in this article is the top bullet point: investing in shares. So let's focus on that.

Many people invest in property and a minority invest in collectibles or other more unusual areas. However, shares have an excellent track record going back well over 100 years. It's investing sensibly in the stock market that hopefully will give you a return of around 7% over the long term.

Aside from that, shares are relatively easy to invest in. Finally, you can invest safely in shares by investing for the long term and by spreading out your investments, e.g. through different sectors like oil, banks, IT, transport, manufacturing, and even property builders and developers. This protects you from losing all your money because of one unfortunate event in a single sector.

Where to put your money

Stuart Watson helped me out with this marvellously-timed article about Foolish investment funds: Ten Top Trackers (published yesterday). UK tracker funds and exchange-traded funds (which are the types of funds that Stuart writes about) have always, for many great reasons, been a favourite of The Motley Fool.

You could do a lot worse than choosing any of those funds to invest in. If you want something more exciting then that's a whole different topic! I hope to cover that in the near future.

Use a pension or ISAs?

Finally, how do you invest for your retirement using funds like these?

Most fund providers will allow you to put a fund into an ISA (a tax-efficient wallet for your investments) or a pension (tax-efficient in a different way). You can ask each provider which they offer for a particular fund, or check out the provider's website.

Take a look at our guide -- Pensions vs ISAs -- which looks at some of the main issues you need to conside when you make this decision.

ISAs are great, but if your employer matches your contributions to a company-pension scheme then this is certainly your first place to start. I also feel that if you're not so knowledgeable about money then you shouldn't be unhappy investing in a simple pension. In particular it means you won't be able to do something silly: spend all the money!

Other choices

For this piece I've hacked at the decision tree till you've just got few branches to choose from. You can invest - or save - for retirement in so many more different ways. However, these are the first ways that you should consider.

Once you've read enough about these branches you might want to look into other options, perhaps by searching The Fool website. But, personally, I'm going to stick with trackers, pensions and ISAs.

*Alternatively, we don't invest but through our employers we have final-salary schemes (otherwise known as ‘defined-benefit' schemes). These pay out, usually, 1/2 or 2/3s of the salary we were earning just prior to retirement. (You get less if you leave the company early, but it's still generous.) These schemes are becoming less common as they've turned out to be too expensive for businesses - but very valuable for most people!

Read more about how to track down lost savings, pensions, shares and more in How To Recover Your Lost Assets

Share & subscribe

Comments

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool. If you spot any comments that are unsuitable hit the flag to alert our moderators.

guykguard 16 Jun 2008, 8:40am

Time will tell whether Faulkner's suggestions prove to be Foolish. For my part, I can tell you an investment that is definitely foolish: any kind of managed fund or fund of funds. I have personal experience of two: one of my own choosing through a large Italian insurance company, the other set up by my employer through a large Swiss insurance company. In both cases, the charges were astronomic. The Swiss bandits trousered a tad over 25% of all contributions to the fund. The Italian charges were so obscure I was never able to pin them down, and the CI company doesn't answer registered letters.
In The Netherlands there is determined public and press opposition to all such schemes, and Die Nederlanden, a large insurance company, is defendant in class actions against the exorbitant charges and other malpractices of such investments.
Whatever you do to ensure a reasonable standard of living in retirement, do not, repeat not, put a penny piece into any kind of managed fund or fund of funds. I don't care what the sales blurb says; if you believe it, you can believe anything. I did, and I realise now when it's a little late in the day just how easy it was to be well intentioned but utterly foolish.

Ilovedoggies 16 Jun 2008, 9:27am

Like many people, because of the credit crunch and high interest rates, I cannot afford to pay into a pension. As simple as that. My company does not offer one. Private pensions are rubbish. If your pension is "paid up" the managers still take charges, so the value of your pot can reduce to zero. A scandal. The only decent pensions are public sector pensions. Decent for the retirees, that is. People like me are paying more for their pensions than our own - in council tax, income tax, etc. This is wrong. public sector pensions should not be unfunded. Only the employer and employee should pay into the pension pot.

Jbat001 16 Jun 2008, 9:44am

To 'Ilovedoggies'

Err, if your pension is made 'paid up', the charges on it will be just the annual management charge (AMC). Since this is a percentage of the fund (1%, for example), and you'd expect to get positive returns most years, how on earth can that conceivably lead to your fund value reaching zero? Even if (theoretically), the fund shrank for several years running, all that would happen is that the AMC would get smaller too, as it's percentage based!

PeterJ42 16 Jun 2008, 10:05am

What most people forget - and companies are loathe to point out is that Gordon takes any private scheme into account and docks state benefit pretty well pound for pound. Any pension is simply a gift to Gordon unless you are a higher rate tax payer with lots of free cash. Far better to rent rather than buy too - then Gordon helps out!

supersol42 16 Jun 2008, 10:22am

Remember the Pensions Credit trap. if you've saved/invested in ISAs, you can simply cash in and spend. If you've done so in pensions, you can't.

Stephen79 16 Jun 2008, 10:56am

Yet again we hear the backlash against those in the public sector. Yes we have retained a final salary pension scheme (for now), but contributions have gone up to ensure these are still affordable without costing the local taxpayer (quite right too). Also, remember that you can choose to work in the private sector and earn 5-10% more for equivalent jobs, or you can take the slight salary drop in exchange for other benefits such as the pension and good leave allowance etc. Swings and roundabouts. (Of course the one advantage of a lower salary with better benefits is that you have to give less in tax to the Scotsman presiding over the demise of UK Plc...)

Jbat001 16 Jun 2008, 11:33am

It doesn't matter how much benefit Gordon Brown or anyone else promises to the public sector in pension benefits - most of them will never see the level of benefit promised.

Most public sector pension schemes are unfunded, and paid for directly out of tax. The aggregated level of liability for this across all public sector schemes is an eye-popping £1.2 trillion. This is the liability if, theoretically, everyone retired today and took benefits. Although it will obviously be staggered and not one hit, there is no way in this world that any government can raise enough taxation to cover all the future public sector liabilities.

Unfortunately, savage cutbacks in public sector final salary benefits will be unavoidable in the next 10-15 years. There really is no way the nation can pay for it otherwise.

martingabriel 16 Jun 2008, 12:28pm

Local authority pensions are not publicly funded as you say. They operate like any other private sector scheme used to operate, with a pensions fund purchasing investments paid for by the contributions from the employee and employer. I paid my 6% for years. For the moment it is still final salary but the conditions for new entrants are more stringent now. In addition local government employees get lower salaries than the equivalent private sector as you comment. If you leave early, like I did, the pension increases with inflation, rather than salaries. Over the 16 years since I left that amounts to quite a difference. Doesn't seem unfair to me.
Civil service pensions are funded directly. The State thinks that is cheaper and it may well be right. This is obviously reflected in the salaries paid. Introducing a contributions paid scheme now would cause an uproar in the civil service - and would undoubtedly end up being expensive as civil servants try to cover their contributions by salary rises - so your taxes would go up.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it......

Kimmerblee 16 Jun 2008, 6:25pm

I'm sorry Ilovedoggies, but you are wrong. Firstly, I pay 6.5% of my annual salary into the NHS pension fund. Secondly, its is an absolutely dire pension scheme. Whereas other pension funds use a calculator of 1/60th of your annual salary X the number of years in the scheme, the NHS is still working on 1/80th twenty or more years after everyone else shifted the goal posts. If you add in the fact that most staff (not the GP's and consultant) earn around 30% less than their counterparts in private industry, there arent any of us retiring from the NHS on a fortune - believe me!

mishko22 17 Jun 2008, 12:44pm

Guykguard, was the Swiss insurance company a branch of Skandia by any chance? The reason I ask is that I was about to invest in them for retirement as they offer a means of avoiding probate, and the complete investment passes to your beneficiary free of Inheritance tax. The charges did seem high, but the advantage I've just mentioned seems to outweigh the charges aspect. I'd welcome your comments.

070619uk 17 Jun 2008, 1:55pm

How about looking at managing your own pensions. Self invested pension plans can be tailored to your current pension allocation at a much lower cost. Consider buying index ETFs where total expense ratios are between 0.15%-less than 1%. This is better than paying annual management fees normally at 1.5% for most funds. The only disadvantage with SIPPS is that they dont offer automatic dividend re-investment. DRIPS in SIPPS would greatly simplify things and ensure that divis are compounded alongside your base capital year in year out.

Ilovedoggies 17 Jun 2008, 3:04pm

I do know what I was talking about, if a little general. The local government and Universities schemes do have a fund. The NHS, teachers and civil servants are unfunded. However, as taxpayers, we all have to contribute towards these schemes, even though most of us will not benefit. That is the nature of taxation and our huge public sector. I used to work in the NHS, so have 3 yrs or so, which will be worth pittance.
The point that I am trying to make, is that I can't AFFORD to pay into a pension. Even if I worked for the NHS now, I could not pay my 6.5% contribution, because interest rates are so high and salaries are not increasing enough, in order to keep Mervyn King happy. There are many people like me. We will have to rely solely on the state when we retire, because of the fiscal and monetary policies of this government.

aflockhart 17 Jun 2008, 5:39pm

"as taxpayers, we all have to contribute towards these schemes even though most of us will not benefit"

As taxpayers, we are the employers of NHS staff and the others mentioned. So we need to pay towards their pensions in the same way that every other employer does, and in the same way that we need to pay their wages.

But we do need to take pensions into account when making comparisons between different groups. A police officer or firefighter may earn what seems like a fairly modest salary but can (depending on service) retire very early on a very good pension; a benefit that would cost up to half a million pounds to buy in the market.

And ( funnily enough) the MPs pension scheme is one of the most generous too.

kph100 17 Jun 2008, 6:01pm

It appears that most private sector workers think that the public sector get free pensions.
Wrong, for example the police pension involves paying 11% per month into the scheme.

muuranker 17 Jun 2008, 6:29pm

If someone has an amount of money each month (+inflation) which they earmark for "mortgage+retirement" would they be better off paying off their mortgage faster (and then investing in shares once the mortgage is paid) or paying off their mortgage more slowly, but investing in shares from the start?

Jbat001 17 Jun 2008, 7:53pm

Martingabriel said:

Local authority pensions are not publicly funded as you say. They operate like any other private sector scheme used to operate, with a pensions fund purchasing investments paid for by the contributions from the employee and employer.

This has to be the best comment on the whole board! Where do you think the money to fund local government comes from? Council tax and central government! Therefore, public sector schemes are publicly funded because it's taxation that allows national and regional government to employ these people and pay them so that they can contribute into a pension in the first place!

Besides, although an employee contributes 6%, the generosity of final salary benefits compared to the same amount of money contributed to a defined contribution scheme mean that someone has to make up the difference. Realistically, although an employee contributes 6%, the real employer contribution for unfunded final salary schemes is much higher, perhaps 20% of employee salary. 2/3 of a final salary of £15,000 is £10,000. To get this from money purchase, a fund of £200,000 would be needed. Do you think you could accumulate this in 40 years from contributions of £75 a month! (6% of £15k)?

TheDemocrat 17 Jun 2008, 10:42pm

supersol42 referred to The Pension Credit trap. If you only rely on the state pension in retirement, either earnings or investments such as an ISAs are taken into account when determining eligibility for Pension Credit.If you simply 'spend' your ISA down to claim Pension Credit, you may be regarded as having caused 'deprivation of capital' and your claim be unsucessful. What is much less known is the asset/income dis-regard from deferred state pension. Say you reached 60 (present womens retirement age) and worked for a further 5 years and deferred your state pension. At 2 over base compound and a full state pension (no S2P) you could have a pot of around 25K. Take this in the tax year of no other earnings other than the state pension and at 65 with the enhanced personal allowance, your tax on this would be zero AND not taken into account when calculating Pension Credit. As always with pensions, not only do you have to plan but you also have to adapt.

financialboredom 18 Jun 2008, 5:21pm

Hello, anyone give me a clue what to do please? I am being advised by a financial adviser to change from a pension fund that has stopped taking on new business which I have contributed to since 1989 and the fund I have built up is 35000ish.There are no transfer fees he assures me and I have no reason to disbelieve him, but which personal pension can anyone advise I reinvest in, I think he is going to choose scottish widows for me as they have a wide selection of funds he says the money can internally transfer to and make more money?
My wife has a very good employer contributing pension and we think we would be prepared to let my pension be reinvested in a more volatile shceme to hopefully boost the end result, we have no mortgage and I am 41, any help please before I choose is very appreciated, thankyou for reading this :-)

publicsectworker 18 Jun 2008, 6:41pm

Is everyone forgetting that public sector workers ALSO pay income tax and council tax? And that a proportion of OUR tax will go towards paying state pensions for those people who don't save for their retirements!

And to private sector workers - where do you think the money comes from to pay your salaries, bonuses, benefits and pensions? We all earn our wage, we all pay taxes - and we all buy products and services which in turn allows companies to pay their staff!

arainbird 21 Jun 2008, 12:37pm

Does anyone have advice based on their experience of AVCs?

I was only in teaching for 10 years so I decided it would be a good idea to top up my pension contributions with AVCs, payable to the teachers’ pension provider, Prudential.
I contacted the insurers directly to arrange this so was surprised to be told that I couldn’t deal directly with their office and that I had to have a home visit from two of their reps. (who presumably have taken a fat commission from my contributions). During this visit at no time was I told that my money would be locked away and that I would be compelled to buy an annuity on retirement.
When I retired three years ago, I was horrified to learn that having paid in some 30,000 pounds in extra, voluntary, contributions, the extra monthly pension payable from an annuity would be barely enough to cover my council community charge. Worse still, if I died, the whole amount would be lost with my heirs receiving nothing (I am single) so I decided to leave the cash where it is until I make up my mind what to do. At least it is earning interest and would be paid to my heirs on my death.
I know I can take out just 25 per cent as a lump sum but I feel outraged that I could invest the whole sum more profitably elsewhere and still keep it intact for my heirs but am prevented from doing so.
This was never explained to me - had it been then I would never have contributed to this complete rip-off.

soapwelder 22 Jun 2008, 5:44pm

A few words of warning for those who, like me, have invested in income-producing ISAs to augment their pensions: do NOT rely on the twice-yearly statement to track the value of your investment. On the advice of a certain well-known personal finance magazine I bought ISAs in the income shares of several split-capital trusts before and after I retired in 1999. Had I checked the share prices on at least a weekly basis I would have spotted their rapid fall in the wake of the dot.com crash and got out. As it was, three of the trusts disappeared completely and the other two paid a pittance when they reached their redemption dates.

I agree that frozen pension entitlements are often a complete rip-off. I had several and all had sufered from a lethal combination of poor investment permformance and continuing management charges. In fact, one of them had achieved zero growth in 34 years!

Jbat001 25 Jun 2008, 5:50pm

To arainbird:


I actually work as a financial advisor, and have seen your situation crop up time and time again. I can't formaly advise you anything, as we're obviously in no position to do the necessary compliance. As an aside, anyone else offering financial advice rather than information here should think carefully. Obviously, the Fool is an awesome mine of financial information, but it can never stand up and say 'we recommend that you invest in XYZ product' or it will be falling foul of the FSMA 2000.

In general terms, your AVC is treated much like a personal pension following the 2006 A-day reforms, so you might be able to transfer it into a SIPP. If you did that, you equally might be able to draw an income from the fund, and then leave at least some of the fund to your family by using Alternatively Secured Pension after age 75 for income and then passing on your fund after your eventual death. You can also donate the entire fund tax free to a charity on your death.

Estate planning can be very complicated, and quality advice is essential. The Fool can cover a lot, but an advisor could be very useful here!

Join the conversation

Instructions

Line breaks are converted automatically.

You may use the following tags in your post: <b>bold</b>, <i>quoted text</i>. All other tags will be removed from your post.

Hello stranger

To add your own comment, please login.

Not yet registered? Register now.