SlicknewAudie-trondazzles
AUDI has pulled the covers off its new all-electric e-tron GT luxury coupe. The four-door model features quattro all-wheel drive and two permanently excited electric motors, one on each axle, giving it a performance punch like no Audi that has come before it.
PERFORMANCE DNA
Sharing its platform and electrical architecture with the Porsche Taycan, the all-new Audi e-tron GT is expected to deliver unrivalled characteristics in terms of acceleration and handling, particularly for the four rings.
Two models will be made available from the start, with the standard e-tron GT quattro offering 350kW and 630Nm, or up to 390kW in overboost mode for 2.5 seconds. The high-performance RS e-tron GT will come with 440kW and 830Nm, and it too can deliver overboost for 2.5 seconds, which sees the output jumping to 475kW.
Compared to the Porsche Taycan Turbo and Taycan Turbo S, the e-tron GT duo is down on pure numbers, but this doesn't mean they aren't as blisteringly quick as their older brothers from Stuttgart.
The Ingolstadt pair accelerates from
0 to 100km/h in just 4.1 seconds for the standard e-tron GT, while the RS e-tron GT takes only 3.3 seconds for the same benchmark sprint.
To ensure a good blend of acceleration, top speed and overtaking ability, the e-tron GT models are fitted with a two-speed gearbox, like the Porsches.
All of this amazing performance is made possible through a 93kWh battery pack (85kWh usable) and a voltage capacity of 800 volts. This means it can be charged very quickly.
For now, AC charging of up to 11kW is supported, while the ability to charge rapidly up to 270kW on those big box chargers is a possibility.
With a full charge, expect to cover around 488km before having to "fill up“again.
LUXURY SUITE
With all the dazzling performance of the Audi e-tron GT range, it's no doubt an ultra-luxurious Audi vehicle at the end of the day, which means tons of standard and optional features.
In fact, even if you buy the highend RS e-tron GT, you’ll still have to dive into the options boxes if you want things like adaptive air suspension for a cushier ride or laser lights to see better in the dark. The e-tron GT is also one of the first new Audi models that can be specified with a vegan-friendly interior.
Audi South Africa hadn’t announced pricing, but we expect the e-tron GT quattro to sell for around R2.5 million – while the RS e-tron GT could set you back around R3.3 million.
A NEW underwater museum opened in Cannes in France, and it will leave you spellbound.
The new attraction, which took more than four years to develop, was funded by the Mairie de Cannes and commissioned by its mayor, David Lisnard. The museum is Jason de Caires Taylor’s first installation in the Mediterranean Sea.
Visitors will explore six monumental three-dimensional portraits that are 2m tall and weigh 10 tons. It can be found near the island of Sainte-Marguerite, one of the Lérins Islands off the coast of Cannes.
Once an unused marine infrastructure, the site was cleaned and marine debris removed to create the space for the installation.
The artwork is designed using pH neutral materials to attract marine fauna and flora.
The artwork rest on areas of white sand, in-between oscillating posidonia seagrass meadows in the protected southern part of the island. The site is safe for snorkelers and divers and easy to access.
Where did the museum gain inspiration for the artworks?
The six works are based on portraits of members of the community, covering a range of ages and professions. Visitors will find 80-year-old Mauricean, a fisherman and Anouk, a 9- year old primary school pupil.
Each face is upscaled and sectioned into two parts. The outer part resembling a mask, which connects to the history of Île Sainte-Marguerite, known as the location where the Man in the Iron Mask was imprisoned.
“The split mask is a metaphor for the ocean,” a statement adds.
“One side of the mask depicts strength and resilience, the other fragility and decay.”
RETIREMENT can be daunting. Not only does it signify a practical and highly emotional transition in life, but the financial implications are often nerve-racking. Add to this the fact that there are legislation changes looming in the first quarter of this year and we have all the ingredients for a fullblown panic attack.
Stop right there! Remember, knowledge is power. Once we’ve unpacked the changes and their implications, you’ll regain your sense of calm and control.
Pension or provident?
There are a baffling array of retirement instruments out there: provident funds, pension funds, preservation funds, retirement annuities. Let’s make this clear upfront: the only instruments affected by the legislation changes are provident and provident preservation funds. If you have a pension preservation fund or a retirement annuity – or both – then nothing will change.
Why the legal amendments? Well, reading the above paragraph should give you a hint. The retirement savings industry is overly complex and confusing for consumers. This, coupled with the scary statistic that only 6% of South Africans are able to retire, and you have a recipe for disaster.
Basically, by changing the law, the National Treasury wants to standardise the law pertaining to all the various financial instruments and ultimately make it safer for people in retirement.
So, what has changed?
Previously, if you had a provident or a provident preservation fund, you could draw 100% of the capital amount upon retirement. From March 1, 2021, however, members of these funds will have to purchase an annuity at retirement, which will provide you with a monthly income going forward. This is the same as if you retire with a pension fund or a retirement annuity.
You are still allowed to withdraw some of your provident savings in cash – up to a third of the fund value – but this is not compulsory.
People older than 55 are exempt.
That’s the legislation change in a nutshell, but obviously real life is a little more complicated. You might be on the cusp of retirement, planning to use your existing provident fund as a lump sum pay-out. Take a deep breath and relax. The good news is that if you’re an existing member of a provident or provident preservation fund, all your benefits in these funds as of February 28, 2021, plus any future growth on these benefits, will not be affected by the legislation changes.
That’s not all. If you will be 55 or older on March 1, 2021, and you remain a member of the same provident fund, your future contributions will also not be affected. The only time the new law will apply to people older than 55 is if you join a new provident fund for first time after March 1, 2021.
What about younger people?
When the new law comes into effect, all savings accrued in an existing provident fund will be referred to as “vested benefits” – your retirement fund will keep a separate account of this money. You will still be able to draw any vested benefits upon retirement as a lump sum, per the law pertaining to provident funds before March 1, 2021. This will fall away only if you transfer your vested benefits to a different retirement fund before you retire. It’s quite confusing, so here’s an example: Jason is 40 years old and a member of his employer’s provident fund. His fund value on March 1, 2021 is R2 million. This amount will represent his vested benefit; all contributions after the law change will be his unvested benefit. Now, assume that at retirement, Jason’s R2m vested benefit has increased to R3m. His unvested benefit – all the contributions and growth in the fund since March 1, 2021, totals R1.5m.
When he retires, Jason will be able to withdraw the entire R3m vested benefit as a lump sum.
However, he will be able to take only R500 000 of the unvested benefit as a lump sum – one third of the total amount – and will be required to purchase an income with the remaining two thirds.
In summary, there’s no need to panic. The government is simply trying to provide an added layer of protection to retirement funds, which is a positive step.
The real concern is that so few people in South Africa can look forward to a decent retirement. Saving for the future is critically important.
If you’re not sure what your company offers regarding this, or if you’re self-employed and you want to streamline the process for maximum benefit in retirement, consult an adviser who has the Certified Financial Planner (CFP) accreditation and cross that worry off your list.
LOOKING at heaving beaches and queues at liquor outlets the day after President Cyril Ramaphosa lifted South Africa’s beach and booze ban, one would be forgiven for thinking that the president had announced that the coronavirus was a thing of the past, that there was no longer any chance of being infected when standing cheekby-jowl with strangers.
This latest response to the easing of pandemic-related regulations confirmed what Covid-19 had already shown us: we must often be compelled to act in our own best interests. The National Treasury should apply this lesson to its attempts to reform retirement saving.
The Treasury’s retirement reform, the final pieces of which are due to come into effect on March 1, has rather poor odds of having the desired effect of bolstering South African retirement savings, because it largely pussyfoots around the real problem: allowing savers to make poor decisions.
The new rules require provident fund members to annuitise part of their savings at retirement, in the same way that pension fund members already do. They are the final stage of a reform process that has simplified the system, but the new regulations still leave plenty of room for people to make bad choices.
If there’s one thing we’ve learned during the Covid-19 pandemic, it’s that informing people and urging them to behave responsibly will take us only so far. Unless there are strictly enforced rules, many people will carry on regardless.
People pay lip service to social distancing and mask-wearing in public, but, unsupervised and unjudged, they ignore the safety protocols, gatherings persist and this behaviour keeps the virus going. Even strict lockdown measures don”t work, except in police states and countries with naturally compliant populations.
South Africans are notoriously non-compliant, which is why we have not contained the virus as yet, and why these attempts to lock down savings similarly won’t work either.
The evidence shows that we don”t usually make optimal choices, even when we are well informed. Instead, we do what feels comfortable, which is often nothing at all. When it comes to saving and investing, we procrastinate and disengage. We choose instant gratification over long-term benefit. We would rather have 3% more takehome pay each month than 50% more income in retirement.
That’s not to say our savings system has not been improved. It has. The tax laws and access rules have largely been harmonised across the different fund types, making the system less confusing and more accessible.
Group schemes are required to offer risk-appropriate and cost-effective default portfolios, which will improve the long-term savings outcome for many. Preservation is now the default option, so employees don’t automatically cash out when they leave.
Pension and provident fund members approaching retirement are entitled to counselling to help them make better decisions about their savings.
There’s also the new Association for Savings and Investment SA cost disclosure standard, which lets members review and compare fund costs – a key driver of long-term investment returns – across different products and providers.
And a new Financial Sector Conduct Authority conduct standard, which prescribes the minimum skills and training required for retirement fund trustees, so that they may do a better job safeguarding members’ interests.
These are all worthwhile changes that facilitate better outcomes. But facilitation is not enough. We also need changes that deliver better outcomes because fund members are still free to choose poorly. They can still invest in high-cost actively managed funds if they are given investment choice. They can still cash out every time they change jobs. They can still avoid annuitisation by resigning before retirement.
Compounding this, employers are still not required to offer a retirement fund and, if they do, there is no legal minimum contribution rate. And there is no formal cap on fund fees.
To achieve better outcomes, the regulator needs to set firm rules and boundaries. Other countries show the way. In Australia’s superannuation system, every employer is required to pay at least 9.5% of each employee’s earnings into a “super” fund. Benefits are preserved to age 60. Exceptions must be motivated on the basis of severe financial hardship, specific medical conditions, or compassionate grounds. Even then, only one withdrawal is allowed over any 12-month period, limited to AU$10 000 (about R115 000).
At retirement, all withdrawals are tax-free but, if savings are transferred into a pension draw-down account, future investment returns are also taxfree. This incentivises preservation.
In the US, employees are incentivised to contribute to their companies’ 401(k) pension plan by way of matching employer contributions. This money may be accessed only from age 59½ onwards. Again, early withdrawals are possible, but also subject to severe restrictions and tax penalties.
These systems do a better job incentivising saving and enforcing preservation. For most people, scoring compulsory or matching retirement fund contributions is more appealing than saving tax on contributions, especially if they pay little or no tax anyway.
Our government has a lot on its plate right now, so the country’s pension shortfall will not be top of mind. If anything, the Treasury will be grateful that we don’t have compulsory preservation, so that those who have lost their jobs can fall back on their retirement savings.
But we can only kick this can so far down the road. If the government is serious about increasing retirement incomes, these latest reforms cannot be the end of the process, merely the end of the beginning.