Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items

The ‘two-pot’ retirement system: something is cooking

07 August 2024 Photo Supplied

Opinion article by Dr Cecile Duvenhage, Lecturer: Personal Finance and Microeconomics, Department of Economics and Finance, University of the Free State, Editor and Co-Author: Personal Finance (Van Schaik Publishers).

On 29 July 2022, the National Treasury released the 2022 Draft Revenue Laws Amendment Bill for public comment until 29 August 2022 to introduce the “two-pot” system for retirement savings that was flagged in the National Budget. The Revenue Laws Amendment Act was the first law approved by Parliament in 2023 and signed into law, giving effect to the new system and setting the implementation date. The Pension Funds Amendment Bill was approved by Parliament in May 2024. It introduces changes to the Pension Funds Act and includes funds not regulated by the Pension Funds Act in the new system. President Cyril Ramaphosa officially signed the Pension Funds Amendment Bill into law on July 21, 2024

The two-pot retirement system in South Africa (to be implemented on 1 September 2024) divides retirement savings into two distinct components: 1) the savings and 2) the retirement pot:

1) Savings Pot: About one-third of the contributions go into this pot that is designed for short-term financial goals and emergencies. Members will be able to access a portion of these savings before retirement if necessary, and can withdraw from it once a year (minimum withdrawal amount of R2 000) under specific conditions.

However, according to the Citizen (22 July 2024) 30% of pension fund members in the Old Mutual Stable fund will have less than R2 000 in their savings pot and will not be able to claim. Informal sector workers often lack coverage, and traditional family-based care for the elderly is breaking down as urbanisation increases. Therefore, this system seems to benefit the middle-income group and (again) fail the poorest of the poor.

Keep in mind that access to the savings pot’s money has implications on both the tax that the individual pays and legal requirements during divorce proceedings. More specifically:

• Withdrawals are subject to taxation at the individual’s marginal tax rate

• Retirement fund administrators must be notified when divorce proceedings are initiated to ensure that no payments are made from the savings pot during the legal process. This ensures that the division of assets is handled correctly according to the legal requirements.

2) Retirement Pot: The retirement component ensures that the bulk of retirement savings – two-thirds – remain untouched until retirement age as stipulated by the fund. This preservation is crucial for securing long-term financial stability post-career. These funds are strictly preserved until retirement age, ensuring long-term financial security. Upon retirement, members can access these funds as a regular income stream, like a pension annuity.

Is it wise to take a portion of your pension?

There are also two sides to the Pension Funds Amendment Bill. Individuals and Financial Companies welcome this new law, as it allows the Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA) to start approving rule amendments – submitted by various funds before 31 July 2024 – once gazetted.

Discovery was the fund to react the quickest with its proposed amendment rules. Some of the other retirement funds and administrators still have a substantial amount of work to do before they will be able to pay claims, including ensuring administration readiness and integration with SARS. SARS anticipates a R5 billion revenue windfall from taxing two-pot retirement system withdrawals in the next financial year. Thus, the government expects many hundreds of thousands of South Africans to access the savings component of their retirement funds as soon as the two-pot retirement system goes live.

Making use of the government’s lifeline – to protect the dignity of those in need and overcome financial stress – can be understood given the economic constraints facing individuals such as high unemployment, excessive debt, and inflation.

However, a wiser approach by the government should be to address the consequences and not the causes of citizens’ financial dignity. Given that less than 6% of individuals in South Africa can retire “without worries”, individuals should also have a good understanding that this “lifeline” is no quick fix for financial stress.

Hidden costs and other implications

Members of South African pension funds may generally access their pension pot from the age of 55. If you withdraw before the age of 55, there will be tax implications. This means that the withdrawal will be taxed similarly to your salary or other income. Any withdrawal is included in your gross income for the year, potentially pushing you into a higher tax bracket.

There will also be hidden costs in the form of penalties as stipulated by the member’s fund. The Institute of Retirement Funds Southern Africa has indicated an administration fee ranging from R300 to R600 on each withdrawal.

South Africa has a progressive tax system, where tax rates increase as taxable income rises. It is designed to be fairer by imposing a lower tax rate on low-income earners and a higher rate on those with higher incomes. Therefore, the amount that a member will get out depends on his/her marginal rate. Should a member be paying 45% tax on his/her taxable income (when earning more than R512 801 per year), a member might end up only getting slightly more than half of the withdrawal amount – once your tax-free benefit at retirement is exhausted.

Some further long-term benefits can be jeopardised when a member withdraws from the retirement savings. These are:

1) Tax-Free Benefit at Retirement: Keep in mind that withdrawals may reduce the tax-free benefit you enjoy at retirement. Up to R550 000 of the lump sum you take in cash at retirement may be tax-free, but this benefit can be eroded if you frequently withdraw from your savings pot before retirement.

2) Lost Tax-Free Growth: Additionally, withdrawing from your savings pot means losing out on tax-free growth. Savings in your retirement fund grow free of tax on interest income, dividends, and capital gains.

Apart from the tax implications, some pension providers will charge fees for withdrawals. Therefore, it is advisable to check with your pension administrator to understand any costs involved. In addition, withdrawing from your savings pot will reduce the remaining balance.

Early withdrawals can significantly affect your retirement savings. Every R1 withdrawn at age 35 could equate to as much as R30 less at retirement 30 years later.

“Two pots” may spoil the broth

Statistics from the Nedfin Health Monitor (2023) reveal that 90% of South Africans have inadequate savings for retirement, and a significant 67% of people in the country have no retirement savings beyond what they are putting into their employer-provided pension funds – which is often too little to be able to retire comfortably. The general rule of thumb is that individuals start saving as soon as possible, as much as possible, for as long as possible.

There is a saying that “too many cooks spoil the broth”. My personal view is that individuals need to be careful that “two pots” do not spoil the broth.

Although the system aims to balance immediate financial needs with long-term security, there is simply no way that individuals can eat their cake and have it. If the two-pot system is regarded as a bailing-out system, worry-free retirement remains a challenge for many. There is still a lot of thought needed for the two-pot system. Policymakers should consult the pension systems of the Netherlands, Iceland, Denmark, and Israel – which are regarded as having the best pension systems globally – to get an understanding of how adequacy, sustainability, and integrity are prioritised.

News Archive

MBA Programme - Question And Answer Sheet - 27 May 2004

2004-05-27

1. WHAT MUST THE UNIVERSITY OF THE FREE STATE (UFS) DO TO GET FULL ACCREDITATION FOR THE MBA PROGRAMMES?

According to the Council on Higher Education’s (CHE) evaluation, the three MBA programmes of the UFS clearly and significantly contribute to students’ knowledge and skills, are relevant for the workplace, are appropriately resourced and have an appropriate internal and external programme environment. These programmes are the MBA General, the MBA in Health Care Management and the MBA in Entrepreneurship.

What the Council on Higher Education did find, was a few technical and administrative issues that need to be addressed.

This is why the three MBA programmes of the UFS received conditional accreditation – which in itself is a major achievement for the UFS’s School of Management, which was only four years old at the time of the evaluation.

The following breakdown gives one a sense of the mostly administrative nature of the conditions that have to be met before full accreditation is granted by the CHE:

a. A formal forum of stakeholders: The UFS is required to establish a more structured, inclusive process of review of its MBA programmes. This is an administrative formality already in process.

b. A work allocation model: According to the CHE this is required to regulate the workload of the teaching staff, particularly as student numbers grow, rather than via standard management processes as currently done.

c. Contractual agreements with part-time staff: The UFS is required to enter into formal agreements with part-time and contractual staff as all agreements are currently done on an informal and claim-basis. This is an administrative formality already in process.

d. A formal curriculum committee: According to the CHE, the School of Management had realised the need for a structure – other than the current Faculty Board - where all MBA lecturers can deliberate on the MBA programmes, and serve as a channel for faculty input, consultation and decision-making.

e. A system of external moderators: This need was already identified by the UFS and the system is to be implemented as early as July 2004.

f. A compulsory research component: The UFS is required to introduce a research component which will include the development of research skills for the business environment. The UFS management identified this need and has approved such a component - it is to take effect from January 2005. This is an insufficient element lacking in virtually all MBA programmes in South Africa.

g. Support programmes for learners having problems with numeracy: The UFS identified this as a need for academic support among some learners and has already developed such a programme which will be implemented from January 2005.

The majority of these conditions have been satisfied already and few remaining steps will take effect soon. It is for this reason that the UFS is confident that its three MBA programmes will soon receive full accreditation.

2. WHAT ACCREDITATION DOES THE UFS HAVE FOR ITS MBA PROGRAMME?

The UFS’s School of Management received conditional accreditation for its three MBA programmes.

Two levels of accreditation are awarded to tertiary institutions for their MBA programmes, namely full accreditation and conditional accreditation. When a programme does not comply with the minimum requirements regarding a small number of criteria, conditional accreditation is given. This can be rectified during the short or medium term.

3. IS THERE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE ACADEMIC CORE OF THE UFS’s MBA PROGRAMMES?

No. The UFS is proud of its three MBA programmes’ reputation in the market and the positive feedback it receives from graduandi and their employers.

The MBA programmes of the UFS meet most of the minimum requirements of the evaluation process.

In particular, the key element of ‘teaching and learning’, which relates to the curriculum and content of the MBA programmes, is beyond question. In other words, the core of what is being taught in our MBA programmes is sound.

4. IS THE UFS’s MBA A WORTHWHILE QUALIFICATION?

Yes. Earlier this year, the School of Management – young as it is - was rated by employers as the best smaller business school in South Africa. This was based on a survey conducted by the Professional Management Review and reported in the Sunday Times Business Times, of 25 January 2004.

The UFS is committed to maintaining these high standards of quality, not only through compliance with the requirements of the CHE, but also through implementing its own quality assurance measures.

Another way in which we benchmark the quality of our MBA programmes is through the partnerships we have formed with institutions such as the DePaul University in Chicago and Kansas State University, both in the US, as well as the Robert Schuman University in France.

For this reason the UFS appreciates and supports the work of the CHE and welcomes its specific findings regarding the three MBA programmes.

It is understandable that the MBA review has caused some nervousness – not least among current MBA students throughout the country.

However, one principle that the UFS management is committed to is this: preparing all our students for a world of challenge and change. Without any doubt the MBA programme of the UFS is a solid preparation.

Back

Economic and Management Sciences

Education

Health Sciences

The Humanities

Law

Natural and Agricultural Sciences

Theology and Religion

Open Distance Learning

Business School

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept