Rounding figures simply to help in understanding

Can you please explain a part of the Anthony Keane article in the Sunday Mail, “Millionaires entitled to a pension boost”. It says “that as of 20th March the assets threshold for a homeowner couple changes from $891,500 to $901,500.” In the next paragraph he then says “that means if they have $900,000 of superannuation and other assets they will still qualify for benefits”. Why did Anthony state $900,000 of assets still qualify for benefits, instead of saying the new value of $901,500 in assets to qualify? Why did he not include the

$1500 in the total of assets? He also said in the article

that you only need to receive $1 of age pension to qualify for the extra benefits (concessions). Is this $1 of age pension per person or per couple? And what is the cut-off of assets per couple before you no longer get a pension – $901,500 or $900,000?

The rounding of numbers is something that often occurs (I do it regularly with clients) and I understand that

Anthony has done this in his article. A rounded-off number/ value is much easier to work with, on the basis that it is relatively close to what the “genuine” figure may be. In the article you query, the slight rounding would be for simplicity’s sake. I have used the cliche “$1 of age pension” innumerable times as a financial planner. Clients who are able to “just qualify” for the age pension get all of the benefits associated with that income support. The dilemma comes when your assessable assets “just” exceed the threshold. I always recommend a comfortable buffer between your assessable assets and the upper threshold. I am about to retire. I will roll my super accumulation account into a pension account – with three years’ living expenses in cash, and the rest in the balanced option. My plan is to make my regular withdrawals from the cash, and to check every six months or so whether to top up the cash from the balanced portion (if its value has risen), or to continue to draw from the remaining cash (if the value has fallen). Would every six months be about right? What you are proposing makes sound sense, and the six monthly check-ups would probably be appropriate. You have not stated how much your super fund (and then account-based pension) would have in it, but my suggestion is to not end up with too much in cash. Remember that the balanced fund will have some cash/fixed interest exposure that will dilute the earning potential of the portfolio over the long term. I would not necessarily be topping up the cash account every six months – again, it depends on your portfolio’s overall asset allocation, fund performance and “speculation” as to how investments might perform going forward.