• HOME
  • LIBRARY
  • CLIENT
    PORTAL
  • UNCLAIMED
    BENEFITS
  • CONTACT
  
Issued August 2024
 
    This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.   
 
In this newsletter...
  Benchtest 07.2024 – Navigating investment decisions, S37C and death benefits, the NPF and more...  
 
Jump to...
     
IMPORTANT NOTES AND REMINDERS
 
  NAMFISA levies
  • Funds with July 2024 year-ends must submit their 2nd levy returns and payments by 23 August 2024;
  • Funds with January 2024 year-ends must submit their 1st levy returns and payments by 23 August 2024;
  • and funds with August 2023 year-ends must submit their final levy returns and payments by 30 August 2024.
Repo rate falls in August 2024

At its August meeting, BON announced that the repo rate is dropped by 0.25% from 7.75% to 7.50%. The interest rate on funds’ direct loans will consequently drop by 0.25% to 11.5% from 1 September 2024.

Registered service providers

Certain pension fund service providers must register with NAMFISA and report to NAMFISA. Download a list of service providers registered as of June 2024, here...
  Retirement calculator

Use our web-based retirement and risk shortfall calculator for your personal retirement planning. Find it here...

If you need help with your financial planning, get in touch with
  • Annemarie Nel (tel 061-446 073)
  • Christina Linge (061-446 075)
  • Dennis Fabianus (061-446 098)
Toolbox for trustees

RFS provides comprehensive support for trustees. Find a list of download documents to assist with governance and management of private funds, registered as of June 2023, here...
 
  
IN THIS NEWSLETTER...
 
 
In this newsletter, we address the following topics:
 
 
 
In 'Tilman Friedrich's industry forum' we present...
  • Monthly review of portfolio performance – 31 July 2024
  • Navigating investment decisions amid global uncertainty
  • Must a death benefit be paid within twelve months?
  • Can a death benefit be paid in instalments?
  • More stakeholder engagement on the NPF
In Compliments, read...
  • A compliment from a Pension Administration Officer of a large fund
In 'News from RFS', read about...
  • RFS celebrates its 25th anniversary!
  • RFS welcomes new staff member
  • The latest Retirement Compass
  • RFS sponsors Ruimte PS netball dresses
  • Important circulars issued by RFS
In 'Legal snippets', read about...
  • Pension Funds Law: Adjudicator's Determination in NG Mkhungo vs Trentyre Provident Fund and others
  • Adjudicator determination: NE Lipali v Afrox  Provident  Fund and Others
  In 'Snippets for the pension funds industry,' read about...
  • Beware of these big retirement risks
  • Dreaming about retirement? Keep these factors in mind!
In ‘Snippets of general interest', read about...
  • Three things Steve Jobs did every night to sleep better
  • Who owns your employees’ inventions – lessons from the ‘call me saga’
And make a point of reading what our clients say about us in the ‘Compliments’ section. It should give you a good appreciation of who and what we are!

As always, your comment is welcome, so open a new mail and drop us a note!

Regards
Tilman Friedrich
 
 
TILMAN FRIEDRICH'S INDUSTRY FORUM
  
Monthly Review of Portfolio Performance
to 31 July 2024
  
  In July 2024, the average prudential balanced portfolio returned 2.0% (June 2024: 1.7%). The top performer is Allan Gray Balanced Fund, with 3.6%, while NAM Coronation Balanced Fund, with 1.3%, takes the bottom spot. Old Mutual Pinnacle Profile Growth Fund took the top spot for the three months, outperforming the ‘average’ by roughly 1.2%. NAM Coronation Balanced Fund underperformed the ‘average’ by 1.5% on the other end of the scale. Note that these returns are before (gross of) asset management fees.

The Monthly Review of Portfolio Performance to 31 July 2024 reviews portfolio performances and provides insightful analyses. Download it here...
 
 
Navigating investment decisions amid global uncertainty
  
  As a Namibian investor with a diversified portfolio, navigating the complexities of global financial markets has always required a thoughtful approach. However, the current international landscape presents unique challenges and opportunities. With geopolitical tensions escalating and economic conditions fluctuating across different regions, making informed investment decisions more crucial than ever. This article provides strategic guidance for those looking to invest their discretionary assets over the next one to two years and beyond.
 
Understanding the current market landscape 

Before diving into specific investment strategies, it’s essential to understand the financial ratios and economic indicators that shape the global markets. Here’s a snapshot of the key financial ratios for major bourses:
  • FTSE 100 (UK): P/E Ratio: 19.6 | Earnings Yield: 3.7% | Dividend Yield: 3.7%
  • DAX (Germany): P/E Ratio: 18 | Earnings Yield: 2.5% | Dividend Yield: 4.2%
  • Nikkei 225 (Japan): P/E Ratio: 14.9 | Earnings Yield: 18.2% | Dividend Yield: 1.1%
  • S&P 500 (USA): P/E Ratio: 20.9 | Earnings Yield: 4.8% | Dividend Yield: 1.35%
  • JSE (South Africa): P/E Ratio: 10.2 | Earnings Yield: 9.9% | Dividend Yield: 2.2% 
South Africa’s economy is grappling with significant headwinds, including persistent power shortages, depressed mineral markets, and infrastructure challenges. Conversely, there is rising concern about potential global conflicts involving major Western nations. In such a scenario, the demand for minerals and resources from countries like South Africa, Namibia, and other resource-rich regions in Africa and South America could surge...

The Monthly Review of Portfolio Performance to 31 July 2024 reviews portfolio performances and provides insightful analyses.  Download it, here...
 
  
Death benefits and S 37C envisages five scenarios
 
  A few important points that are overlooked too easily, regarding the time frames for the payment of death benefits in case of each of the 5 different scenarios envisaged in section 37C:
  1. There are dependants but no nominated beneficiary:
    The benefits can be paid to the identified dependants within 12 months from the date of death, provided the trustees are sure to have identified all dependants. Else, the benefit must be paid to the dependants as soon as the trustees have identified all dependants and it can take longer than twelve months.
  2. There are no dependants but nominated beneficiaries:
    Payment to the beneficiaries may only be made upon the expiry of the 12 months. 
  3. There are both dependants and nominated beneficiaries:
    The benefits can be paid within 12 months from the date of death provided the trustees are sure to have identified all dependants. Else, the benefit must be paid to the dependants and nominees as soon as the trustees have identified all dependants and it can take longer than twelve months. 
  4. There are neither dependants nor nominated beneficiaries:
    The relevant subsection of section 37C does not set out a time frame and it is argued that the benefit can only be paid to the estate of the deceased after expiry of the 12 months from date of death, affording trustees and dependants enough time to trace dependants or still claim dependency, respectively. 
  5. There are no dependants and the deceased nominated a beneficiary only for a portion of the benefit:
    Payment to the estate and the nominee will become due and enforceable on the expiry of the 12 months form date of death.
 
 
Can a death benefit be paid in instalments?
 
  PFA section 37C specifies the time within which a death benefit must be paid. In broad terms, if the trustees established that there are no dependants, the benefit must be paid twelve months after date of death. If there are dependants, the death benefit must be paid once the fund is in mora.

Where a debtor’s (the fund’s) liability is dependent upon the performance of certain conditions (e.g. as prescribed in section 37C), the debtor will not be in mora until a duty to pay arises (e.g. all dependants of a deceased needed to be and then have been determined and the trustees finalised the benefits allocation).

Mora can arise where the creditor’s need is urgent and the delay in paying the creditor is unreasonable. The common belief that a fund’s duty to pay is contingent upon the expiry of the 12 month period referred to in section 37c is not correct. The duty to pay is not dependent on this but instead on whether the trustees are satisfied that they have investigated and considered with due diligence and are in a position to make a decision.

Most trustees are familiar with the demanding process they need to follow when faced with the disposition of a benefit due in respect of a deceased member. Section 37C (2) then stipulates that “…the payment…shall be deemed to include a payment made by the fund to a trustee contemplated in the Trustee Moneys Protection Act…for the benefit of a dependant…”

Section 37C thus makes no prescription as to the manner of payment but only explicitly allows for payment to a trust. As stated above the obligation of a fund making payment arises upon the fund being ‘in mora’ towards a dependant. This means that either all dependants have been identified or a dependant’s needs are urgent and a delay would be unreasonable.

In practice trustees often believe that they have identified all dependants, but cannot be certain. This uncertainty exists mostly in the case of a deceased male member, where one can not be sure of his dependants. In such cases, the trustees must be mindful that dependants can still appear to lay claim on sharing in a benefit until 12 months following the member's death date have expired.

In such a case, the trustees need to assess the needs of those identified dependants. Should there be an urgent need, mora arises, and the fund is obliged to pay. Since the quantum of the benefit due to the dependant in urgent need can only be determined upon expiry of the 12 months following the date of death of the member, or the identification of all dependants (whichever occurs last), in my opinion, the only manner in which the trustees can reasonably meet their obligation is to make one or more interim payments to those dependants with urgent needs of a portion of the full benefit that would be allocated to them in the event of no other dependants being identified subsequently and up to the expiry of the 12 months.
 
 
 
More stakeholder engagement on the NPF
 
  With the help of the ILO actuary, the SSC presented the ILO NPF model to the pension funds industry consisting of RFIN, GIPF and NAMFISA on Friday, 02 August 2024. The same presentation was provided to employers about a month ago. SSC was also supposed to present the governance framework but did not present anything, indicating that none of the governance framework options formulated by Manfred Zamuee was acceptable to the Ministry of Labour. The presentation by SSC and ILO was also supposed to come up with a roadmap for the implementation of NPF. However, they had nothing to present in this respect to employers and the pension fund industry stakeholders. We understand that the SSC plans to continue with their consultations and will present the ILO NPF model that the government prefers to different stakeholders, including members of the public.
 
The Namibia Employer’s Federation hosted a feedback and engagement session with its stakeholders on 7 August at NIPAM. The GIPF CEO, his legal experts, various principal officers of umbrella funds, a few large funds, ICAN and NASIA, attended the meeting. The purpose of the NEF consultation was to solicit views regarding the ILO NPF model and a plan of action in response. Marthinuz Fabianus is a member of the NEF committee that hosted this session.
 
Here is feedback from a few high-profile attendees of the engagement session:
 
“It was an informative session but, at the same time, very concerning regarding
 the possible unintended consequences an NPF would pose to the ecosystem.
 
Perhaps the real focus should be on possible avenues of engagement that would yield desirable outcomes. The “SSC model” would be a better compromise. There must be a recognition that those covered by existing PFs don’t need to be brought into the net. What is the “ILO model” fixing for the existing PFs? Whatever must be fixed surely can and should be done with such funds. If at all necessary. 
 
The “ILO model” is opaque on governance and investment strategy. Admittedly I haven’t read the full report. But worried that the NPF would not be under the watch of Namfisa but managed and run by a yet-to-be-established team. Under whose auspices, no one knows!” ~ Asset management industry spokesperson
 
“I was happy to receive the invite, and I found the session very informative especially the ILO influence.
 
I believe Ramon articulated the key issue well.  “What is it we want to achieve with the NPF”? If it is to provide “appropriate” or “adequate” income to all Namibian’s who are over a certain age, then we need to address the issue at the right platform and not try to fix or tamper with a system that is not broken.”
~ Former senior NAMFISA official

 
 
 
COMPLIMENT
 
 
Compliment from a Pension Administration Officer of a large employer
Dated 26 July 2024
 
“Yo! Elbie,
 
I did not even blink and the PAYE was staring at me. LOL….. That was super fast.
 
Appreciated.”

 
 
  
 
Read more comments from our clients, here...
 
 
NEWS FROM RFS
 
RFS celebrates its 25th anniversary!
 
  As we mark this incredible milestone, we extend our heartfelt gratitude to our valued partners, clients, shareholders, and dedicated employees. Your trust, support, and hard work have been the cornerstone of our journey. Together, we've built a legacy of integrity, innovation, and excellence.

Thank you for being an essential part of RFS Fund Administrators. Here's to the next 25 years of shared success and growth!
 
    
   
     
RFS welcomes new (and old) staff members
  
 
We are delighted to announce that Vesoreendo Poulletter Kangootui will join our permanent staff as a pension fund administrator in the RFLAUN team on 1 August 2024. Pouletter is an experienced human resources practitioner. She holds a Bachelor of Human Resources Management Honours from NUST. She joined RFS from !Kharos Benefit Solutions, where she held the position of payroll administrator. She started her career in the personnel department of Air Namibia in 2016. She is married, and the couple have a son and a daughter.
 
We also happily welcome back an ‘old face’, Riduwone Farmer. Riduwone will re-join our permanent staff complement on 1 September as a Benchmark Client manager. He served a portfolio of Benchmark clients as a client manager for just more than 5 years before he left Namibia in September 2022 for Germany, where his wife served in the Namibian embassy. His former clients will no doubt be thrilled having him back!
 
Riduwone is well-known in our industry. He started his career at UPA in 1998, under our former managing director, and became part of Alexander Forbes with the merger. He gained experience in almost all administration related fields over a period of more than 20 years with AlexForbes and RFS. Riduwone holds a bachelor’s degree in business administration.
 
We warmly welcome Poulletter and Riduwone to the team and look forward to their contribution to ensuring their RFLAUN and Benchmark employers rest easy, knowing that RFS is attending to their retirement nest egg. We are confident that their friendly and outgoing personalities will be complement our team well. We wish Riduwone and Poulletter all the best in their roles and look forward to having them around for many years!
 
 
The RETIREMENT COMPASS
  
 
Sebastian Frank-Schulz, Senior Manager of Client Services, Benchmark, and editor of the Retirement Compass, recently finalised the second edition of our newsletter for pension fund members.
 
RFS Fund Administrators sponsor this newsletter as part of its social responsibility and its initiatives to support the retirement fund industry.

This newsletter aims to provide members of funds managed by RFS Fund Administrators and other parties in their network with retirement funding and planning-related news and insights presented understandably.

Read the latest Retirement Compass here...
 
 
RFS sponsors Ruimte PS netball dresses
  
 
Leana Rickerts, Client Manager of the Benchmark Retirement Fund, arranged with RFS to sponsor sports uniforms for the netball team of the Ruimte Primary School in Rehoboth. In the picture on the left, she hands the uniforms to the netball coach and teacher at Ruimte Primary School, Mrs Husselman. The other images show how the team looks in their new netball uniforms.
 
    
 
   
  
   
  
Important circulars issued by RFS
  
  RFS issued the following circulars in August:
  • RFS 2024.07.04 – Cash management arrangement
  • RFS 2024.08-05 – Confirmation of registered service providers
Clients are welcome to contact us if they require a copy of any circular.
 
  
LEGAL SNIPPETS
 
Pension Funds Law: Adjudicator's Determination in NG Mkhungo vs Trentyre Provident Fund and others
 
  This article analyses a recent determination by the Office of the Pension Funds Adjudicator concerning the non-payment of a death benefit under the Pension Funds Act, 24 of 1956 (the "Act"). The determination highlights crucial legal principles governing the administration and distribution of pension benefits, particularly death benefits. We will explore pension fund boards' legal obligations, beneficiaries' rights, and the Adjudicator’s role in resolving disputes.

Background of the Case

In this case, the complainant, NG Mkhungo, brought a complaint against the Trentyre Provident Fund (the first respondent), NBC Unclaimed Benefit Fund (the second respondent), and NBC Fund Administration Services (the third respondent). The dispute arose from the first respondent's failure to pay a death benefit following the death of Mr. Weideman, a member of the fund.

Legal Framework: Section 37C of the Pension Funds Act
  1. Purpose and Scope of Section 37C:
    1. Section 37C governs the distribution of death benefits from a pension fund. The primary aim is to protect the financial interests of the deceased member's dependants, ensuring that benefits are equitably distributed.
    2. The section vests the board of trustees with discretionary powers to identify dependants and distribute benefits in a manner they deem equitable.
  2. Duties of the Board of Trustees:
    • The board must conduct thorough investigations to identify all dependants and nominees of the deceased member.
    • Upon identifying dependants, the board must consider several factors, such as age, relationship to the deceased, extent of dependency, the deceased's wishes, and the financial needs of each dependant (as established in Sithole v ICS Provident Fund and Another [2004]).
    • The board must ensure that the distribution is fair and equitable, considering each beneficiary's personal circumstances.
Important Legal Issues Addressed in the Determination
  1. Delay in Distribution:
    • The board of the first respondent failed to distribute the death benefit within a reasonable time, with the deceased having passed away in 2001 and the benefit only allocated in 2007.
    • The Act requires that benefits be distributed within 12 months of the member's death. The board's failure to do so breached its duties under Section 37C.
  2. Fiduciary Duty and Good Faith:
    • Section 7C(2)(f) of the Act imposes a fiduciary duty on the board to act in the best interests of members and beneficiaries. The board's failure to distribute the benefits promptly or provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay was deemed a breach of this duty.
    • The Adjudicator noted that the board’s dilatory conduct caused prejudice to the beneficiaries, potentially denying them access to funds they were entitled to.
  3. Compensation for Delayed Payment:
    • The Adjudicator awarded compensation of R423,164.49, calculated as 15% compound interest on the delayed payment from 2008 to the present. This decision was influenced by precedents such as Mothala v Metal Industries Provident Fund [2004] and Claase v Information Officer, SA Airways (Pty) Ltd [2007].
    • The compensation serves as a punitive measure, marking the Adjudicator's displeasure with the fund’s handling of the case and ensuring that the beneficiaries are not financially disadvantaged by the delay.
Lessons for Pension Fund Trustees and Administrators
  1. Strict Adherence to Statutory Timelines:
    • Trustees must ensure that death benefits are distributed within the statutory period to avoid legal repercussions and financial penalties.
  2. Proper Record-Keeping:
    • Trustees must maintain detailed records of their decisions, including the rationale for distributing benefits. In this case, the failure to produce documents from over ten years ago was significant.
  3. Exercise of Discretion:
    • Trustees must exercise discretion properly, considering all relevant factors and disregarding irrelevant ones. The decision-making process must be documented to withstand scrutiny.
  4. Communication with Beneficiaries:
    • Trustees and administrators must maintain open lines of communication with beneficiaries throughout the process. In this case, the lack of communication led to additional distress and frustration for the complainant.
Conclusion

The determination underlines the critical importance of adherence to the legal duties imposed on pension fund trustees. Failure to comply with these duties can result in significant financial liabilities and reputational damage. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of proper governance, timely decision-making, and diligent communication in managing pension funds.

Editor’s note: The Namibian PFA does not contain an equivalent to section 7C, common law would likely impose a fiduciary duty on the board to act in the best interests of members and beneficiaries. Namibian courts will likely follow the same principles set out in this determination.

Read the determination here...
 
   
Adjudicator determination: NE Lipali v Afrox  Provident  Fund and Others
  
  In this case, the Adjudicator reconsidered a determination after the original determination was set aside by the FST and remitted because the deceased's siblings were not added as parties to the original complaint.
 
The deceased passed away, leaving behind two siblings and a nominee. The nominee used to be the deceased's fiancé. However, their relationship had ended four years prior to his death.
 
Before his death, he informed a work colleague that he intended to substitute his former fiancé with his sister as a nominee. Shortly before his death, he visited the employer's HR department with his siblings to collect a beneficiary nomination form and nominate his sister. However, he was unable to complete it before his death due to his ill health.
 
The deceased's siblings indicated that upon leaving the HR department, he informed them that he had impregnated a woman many years ago and that he wished to contribute towards the child. After that, he attended with his brother at the woman's last known place of employment, and they were told that the woman's whereabouts were unknown. Her employers were unaware that the woman was pregnant at any stage.
 
The deceased's parents had predeceased him. He passed away intestate on 3 December 2019. The siblings claimed that 100% of the death benefit should be paid to them as they fell into all three categories of dependants, i.e. legal, factual and future. The ex-fiancé claimed that she was a nominee and that she should accordingly be paid the death benefit.
 
The fund resolved that:
  • The death benefit should not be paid out to allow a "reasonable time" for the unknown child to come forward. If the child comes forward, then 100% of the benefit should be paid to the child. If the child does not come forward, the siblings should share in the benefit equally.
  • The fund's justification for the siblings qualifying as dependants was that it was highly unlikely that the ex-fiancé would have become financially dependent on the deceased, whereas the siblings might have become financially dependent on the deceased since they were both older than him.
The Adjudicator held:
  • The administrator conducted a substantial investigation into the whereabouts of the alleged minor child and mother and could not find any trace of them.
  • Even if the minor child existed, it is clear that there was no actual dependency that the deceased provided.
  • It was unclear what the board meant by allowing a reasonable time· to lapse, but the board should adhere to the 12 months referred to in section 37C.
  • The board's decision to allocate 100% of the benefit to a minor child, which it has no prospect of tracing or any evidence to suggest that the alleged minor child even exists, is completely irrational and must be set aside.
  • For the siblings to qualify as future dependants, they must be someone to whom the member would have become legally liable for maintenance.
  • Our common law provides that a person can become liable to maintain their siblings if two factors are present, viz., the sibling must be needy (in the true sense of the word). The sibling must be unable to claim maintenance from their blood relations that fall within the first degree of consanguinity, i.e. their parents and children.
  • The siblings did not make any submissions to the fund about satisfying the two requirements that must be present when a sibling can claim maintenance, and these are matters that the fund must investigate. The siblings' claim of factual dependency also required further investigation by the fund.
  • Concerning the nominee, the evidence did not support the finding that she was the permanent life partner of the deceased.
  • The fund would be entitled to consider the nature of the relationship between the deceased and the nominee. The fact that she is a nominee does not necessarily mean that she should receive a portion. She could be allocated 0%.
  • If it were proven through the fund's investigations that the siblings were dependants, then there would have to be an equitable distribution between the siblings and the nominee.
ORDER: The fund's decision is set aside, the fund is directed to investigate the siblings' dependency, and after that, to decide on an equitable distribution.
 
Editor’s note: The Adjudicator pointed out that under South African common law, a person can become liable to maintain their siblings if two factors are present, viz. the sibling must be needy (in the true sense of the word), and the sibling must be unable to claim maintenance from their blood relations that fall within the first degree of consanguinity, i.e. their parents or their children.
 
Namibia introduced the Maintenance Act No. 9 of 2003 in 2011, which prescribes certain maintenance obligations, such as a parent regarding his children or a child regarding his parents under certain circumstances. However, Section 2(b) of the Act states that it “must not be interpreted to derogate from the law relating to the duty of persons to maintain other persons.” This Act, therefore, does not derogate from any common law obligations to maintain other persons, and Namibian courts will likely follow the same principles set out in this determination.

From the Pension Fund Adjudicator’s annual report 2022-2023.
 
SNIPPETS FOR THE PENSION FUND INDUSTRY
 
Beware of these big retirement risks
 
  Retirement in South Africa has several financial risks, making effective planning crucial for maintaining wealth and lifestyle. The retirement journey can be divided into three phases: Active, Passive, and Supported, each with different financial needs.

Three Phases of Retirement:
  1. Active Phase: Early retirement years where individuals remain active, often with higher discretionary spending on travel and hobbies.
  2. Passive Phase: As retirees age into their 70s and 80s, their lifestyles may become more frugal, focusing on downsizing and reduced large-scale activities.
  3. Supported Phase: In later years, health care and support needs increase, leading to a significant shift in expenses towards medical care and assisted living.
Key Retirement Risks:
  1. Longevity Risk: The risk of outliving one’s savings is significant. Planning for at least 30 years post-retirement is essential, especially for those retiring at 65.
  2. Inflation Risk: Inflation erodes purchasing power over time. The cost of goods and services will likely increase, impacting retirees' standard of living.
  3. Medical Risk: Healthcare costs typically rise faster than general inflation, requiring a larger portion of the budget for medical needs.
Financial Planning Strategies:
  • Balanced Investment Approach: Start with growth-oriented investments in the early years, shifting towards more conservative asset classes to protect assets from market volatility as you age. Maintain some growth assets, like equities, to counteract inflation.
  • Budgeting for Phases: Plan and budget for each retirement phase, allocating funds for travel and leisure in the active phase and setting aside more for medical expenses in the supported phase.
  • Savings Calculation: A general guideline is to have savings of 200 to 250 times your monthly income to sustain your lifestyle until age 95. For instance, retiring with an income of R100,000 per month would require around R20 to R25 million in savings.
  • Debt Management: Enter retirement with as little debt as possible. Ideally, all major purchases, such as homes and cars, should be fully paid off.
  • Withdrawal Strategy: Implement a sustainable withdrawal strategy, with an ideal drawdown rate of 4.5% to 5% annually, adjusted based on inflation and specific financial needs.
Read the full article by Luke Frazer in Businesstech of 18 July 2024 here…
 
    
Dreaming about retirement? Keep these factors in mind!
  
  Whether you are still young or approaching retirement, preparing for retirement is always a good idea, and it will bring about significant changes in your circumstances. When you plan for retirement, consider the following factors.
 
Financial Considerations
  • Loss of Income: Retirement typically results in a significant reduction in income. Planning helps avoid financial struggles.
  • Overestimated Savings: Many households may overestimate their retirement savings, making careful planning crucial.
  • Withdrawal Rate: Professionals suggest an annual withdrawal rate of 3.5% to 4% from retirement savings, adjusting based on personal circumstances. Reducing non-essential expenses can also help.
  • Boosting Income: If savings are insufficient, consider working longer or maximising retirement benefits by delaying retirement until age 70.
  • Reduced Housing Expenses: Retirement often coincides with the end of mortgage payments, which can lower housing costs.
  • Medical Expenses: Planning for substantial medical and long-term care expenses is essential. Using retirement calculators can help track savings progress.
Retirement Tools and Documentation
  • Retirement Tools: Utilise tools or calculators, freely available on the internet, that consider age, retirement age, and income goals to understand your savings needs and progress better.
  • Necessary Documents: Keep essential documents like employment contracts, pay slips, and benefits records organised to establish your pension.
Health and Lifestyle Considerations
  • Anticipating Needs: It's vital to prepare financially for retirement and consider the broader impact of reduced income and changing needs.
  • Healthy Aging: Retirement brings health challenges; regular check-ups and staying active are recommended.
  • Mental Activity: Keeping your mind active is crucial. Plan how you'll spend your time to avoid feelings of purposelessness.
Emotional and Social Considerations
  • Finding Purpose: Whether through travel, hobbies, volunteering, or family time, planning for how you'll find purpose in retirement is essential.
  • Adjusting to Change: Expect ups and downs as you adjust to retirement. It's normal to feel lost initially.
  • Spousal Tensions: Spending more time with a partner may lead to tension. Open communication and routine adjustments can help.
  • Social Interaction: While seeking alone time is okay, don't isolate yourself; retirement can be a time to strengthen relationships.
Lifelong Learning and Flexibility
  • Continual Learning: Stay flexible, keep an open mind, and continue learning to maintain a youthful, adaptable outlook in retirement. 
This summary is based on an article published on LinkedIn.
 
 
SNIPPETS OF GENERAL INTEREST
  
Three things Steve Jobs did every night to sleep better
  
  Steve Jobs was well known for being one of the most driven, hard-working, and successful innovators ever. He did three things each evening: rest, recharge, and get a good night’s sleep. Jobs would drink hot herbal tea after dinner each evening, with herbs such as lemon verbena coming from his garden. Drinking herbal tea has been proven to remove toxins from the body, aid digestion, and help you relax. The tech innovator would then go for a walk in the evenings, which has been proven to improve sleep quality. Jobs was an avid walker and often opted for ‘walking meetings’ rather than sitting in a conference room. It has been reported that Jobs would spend the final hour of his day meditating or listening to music. Studies have shown that relaxing music can lower your blood pressure, reduce stress, and aid sleep. Meditation can help us lower our heart rate, slow our breathing, and increase our chance of sleeping well.  
 
Who owns your employees' inventions – lessons from the ‘call me saga’
  
 
This article highlights the importance of addressing intellectual property (IP) ownership in employment contracts to avoid legal disputes between employers and employees. It uses the "Please Call Me" case as example, where Vodacom's ex-employee Kenneth Makate claimed compensation for an idea he developed while working at the company. Despite his verbal agreement with a Vodacom director, the company refused to pay him, leading to prolonged court battles, with the final compensation potentially amounting to billions of rand.

The article emphasises that, under common law, IP created by employees during their employment typically belongs to the employer. However, disputes can arise when employees claim their inventions were made outside the scope of their employment. To prevent such IP disputes, the author recommends that employers clearly outline IP ownership in employment contracts, ensuring that any IP created during employment belongs to the employer, regardless of the circumstances.

Steps for Employers to Secure IP Rights:
  1. Employment Contracts: Clearly state in all employment contracts that any IP created by the employee during the period of employment belongs to the employer.
  2. Customisation: Tailor the IP clause to reflect the nature of the employer’s business and the employee’s role.
  3. Fairness and Compliance: Ensure the clause is fair, practical, and compliant with legislative limitations.
  4. Incentives and Procedures: Include incentives for employees to innovate and share their ideas with the company.
  5. Professional Advice: Seek specific legal advice to draft IP clauses that meet the business's unique needs.
Read the full article by Pyper Turner Inc, Chartered Accountants, here...
 
 
AND FINALLY...
  
Wisdom from great philosophers
  
  "Ideologies separate us. Dreams and anguish bring us together." ~ Eugene Ionesco 1909 – 1994 (French-Romanian author)  
  
  Unsubscribe
If you do not want to receive these newsletters {unsubscribe}click here...{/unsubscribe}

Disclaimer
Whilst we have taken all reasonable measures to ensure that the results reflected herein are correct, Benchmark Retirement Fund and RFS Fund Administrators (Pty) Ltd do not accept any liability for the accuracy of the information and no decision should be taken on the basis of the information contained herein before confirming the detail with the relevant portfolio manager.
 
  
PENSION CALCULATOR
How much will you need when you retire and are you investing enough?
GALLERY
CLIENT COM(PLI)MENTS
FREE INVESTMENT AND PENSION FUND NEWS
Subscribe now to receive our monthly newsletter.
We use cookies to make this site simpler. By using this site, you permit the use of cookies.
More information Ok