Why Most Retirement Models Are Wrong

Most retirement models underestimate what Australians need in retirement because they rely on flawed assumptions about returns, inflation, longevity, and lifestyle costs.

Traditional retirement planning models use assumptions that don't reflect structural realities: 7-9% returns compound slowly over decades, inflation erodes purchasing power, people live longer, and lifestyle costs are often underestimated.

The Problem with Traditional Models

Standard retirement models use assumptions that systematically underestimate what's needed.

Flawed Assumptions

  • 7-9% returns compound slowly: Over 20-40 year horizons, these returns produce modest outcomes, especially after fees and inflation
  • Inflation is ignored or underestimated: Purchasing power erodes over decades, but many models don't account for this properly
  • Longevity risk is underestimated: People are living longer, requiring larger balances to sustain 25+ year retirements
  • Lifestyle costs are underestimated: Standard benchmarks (e.g., ASFA Retirement Standard) assume modest lifestyles and don't account for travel, healthcare, or quality of life
  • Fee impact is minimized: Ongoing fees compound over decades, reducing final balances significantly
  • Rule changes are ignored: Models assume current tax treatment and rules remain constant

The result: Most retirement models suggest Australians need $500k-$1.5M to retire comfortably. In reality, considering inflation, longevity, and lifestyle, $3-4M+ may be more realistic for a comfortable retirement.

Structural Realities Traditional Models Ignore

Traditional retirement models ignore structural factors that affect outcomes over 20-40 year horizons.

Inflation and Currency Debasement

Fiat currencies lose purchasing power over time. What costs $100,000 today may cost $200,000+ in 20 years. Traditional models often assume 2-3% inflation, but real-world inflation (especially in lifestyle costs like healthcare, travel, housing) can be higher.

Longevity Risk

Australians are living longer. A 65-year-old today may live to 90+. This means 25+ years of retirement, requiring larger balances to sustain. Many models assume shorter lifespans or don't properly account for longevity risk.

Fee Compounding

Management fees (0.5-1.5% per year) compound over decades. On a $500,000 balance over 30 years, 1% fees reduce final balance by hundreds of thousands of dollars. Many models minimize this impact.

Rule Changes

Tax treatment, contribution caps, and SMSF rules change with political cycles. Models that assume current rules remain constant ignore regulatory risk.

Lifestyle Expectations

Standard benchmarks assume modest lifestyles. Real retirement often involves travel, healthcare costs, helping family, and maintaining quality of life — costs that exceed standard model assumptions.

The Fund Incentive Problem

Traditional super funds are incentivized to perform as a herd, not to maximize long-term outcomes for individual members.

The Your Future, Your Super (YFYS) Performance Test:

  • Funds are assessed on 2-year rolling periods against peer benchmarks
  • Underperformance threshold: funds that underperform by more than 0.5% over 8 years fail the test
  • Consequence: funds are incentivized to perform with the herd, not to outperform over long horizons
  • Time horizon: funds think in 2-year cycles, not 20-40 year retirement horizons

The structural reality: Super funds are incentivized to invest in balanced, diversified portfolios that perform as a herd with peers, with a time horizon of about 2 years (the performance test cycle). Your retirement is 20, 30, or 40 years away.

This creates misalignment: Funds optimize for short-term performance benchmarks, not your long-term retirement outcomes. This is not malicious — it's the structural incentive system.

What Models Get Right (And What They Don't)

Retirement models aren't completely wrong — they're systematically biased toward underestimation.

What Models Get Right

  • Compound growth math: The mathematics of compounding are correct
  • Time horizon matters: Longer horizons amplify differences in returns
  • Consistency helps: Regular contributions improve outcomes
  • Diversification reduces risk: Diversified portfolios are less volatile

What Models Get Wrong

  • Return assumptions: 7-9% returns may be optimistic given fees, or too conservative if superior assets are available
  • Inflation: Underestimated or ignored, especially lifestyle inflation
  • Longevity: Models often assume shorter lifespans than reality
  • Lifestyle costs: Standard benchmarks underestimate real retirement costs
  • Fee impact: Compounding impact of fees is minimized
  • Regulatory risk: Rule changes are ignored
  • Structural incentives: Fund incentives and misalignment are not considered

The Implication

If traditional retirement models systematically underestimate what's needed, most Australians may be sleepwalking into underfunded retirement.

This is not a conspiracy. It's structural: models use conservative assumptions, funds optimize for short-term benchmarks, and the system doesn't incentivize long-term optimization for individual members.

The question becomes: If traditional approaches systematically produce modest outcomes, what structural alternatives exist? Bitcoin SMSFs are one such alternative — not because they promise returns, but because they offer different structural properties: fixed supply (inflation protection), self-custody (independence from intermediaries), and potential for higher returns (though with higher volatility).

This is not a recommendation. This is an explanation of why traditional models may be wrong, and why structural alternatives deserve consideration. Whether Bitcoin SMSFs are appropriate for you depends on your circumstances, risk tolerance, and willingness to take responsibility.

Related Content

For more information, see:

Educational information only. BitcoinSuper does not provide financial advice. See full disclaimers →