Don't even bother starting 'til you're 25?!

[Nudelkopf]

http://www.news.com.au/money/superannuation/fatten-your-savings-beyond-super/story-e6frfmdi-1226620754149

Despite what the article is actually talking about, I love that they only offer advice for people aged 25+. What! Does that mean I've got a free ticket for the next 5 years?

Also:

Age 65+
Happy retirement. Because you started planning all those years ago, the house is paid off, you have the maximum super payout possible and have built a tidy nest egg of other investments to ensure an enjoyable retirement.

[limeandpepper]

I find it more troublesome that all the advice basically revolves around the assumption that people from the ages of 25 - 44 have a mortgage, and doesn't offer alternative investment options for those who don't.

[mpbaker22]

I suppose they wouldn't like my strategy of saving as much as I can BEFORE I hit 25.  That way I'm prepared for any family expenses and as long as I don't tap the savings, it'll grow to retirement ...

I find it more troublesome that all the advice basically revolves around the assumption that people from the ages of 25 - 44 have a mortgage, and doesn't offer alternative investment options for those who don't.

Maybe it doesn't offer alternative investment options, but I think the idea they're presenting is to kill the mortgage as quickly as possible.  Isn't that a good thing, according to your comment?

[limeandpepper]

I find it more troublesome that all the advice basically revolves around the assumption that people from the ages of 25 - 44 have a mortgage, and doesn't offer alternative investment options for those who don't.

Maybe it doesn't offer alternative investment options, but I think the idea they're presenting is to kill the mortgage as quickly as possible.  Isn't that a good thing, according to your comment?

My point is not everyone has (or even want) a mortgage, yet it is the "default" position taken in this article. It would be nice if there is more investment advice available for people who don't have a mortgage.

[mpbaker22]

I find it more troublesome that all the advice basically revolves around the assumption that people from the ages of 25 - 44 have a mortgage, and doesn't offer alternative investment options for those who don't.

Maybe it doesn't offer alternative investment options, but I think the idea they're presenting is to kill the mortgage as quickly as possible.  Isn't that a good thing, according to your comment?

I guess I see investment advice as being the same regardless.  It's just with/without a mortgage you'll have different amounts available to invest, which might open more opportunities.
Let's be honest though, this article didn't provide much investment advice ...
My point is not everyone has (or even want) a mortgage, yet it is the "default" position taken in this article. It would be nice if there is more investment advice available for people who don't have a mortgage.

[matchewed]

For people who don't have mortgages the investment advice is still relevant. You just toss out the mortgage part and anything related to the home ownership aspect such as HELOC's in the USA or other equivalents (I don't know if they are different in other countries).

But the basics of that article are still sound. Put money away into a retirement investment vehicle (old person money as some people call it, and the article calls for 20% on this), put money into other investments (in the articles case 20% into what they call aggressive share investment, we'd probably call index fund investing), and the 50% into mortgage just gets translated into pay your rent (any difference between rent and 50% can be invested in the prior two mentioned or put aside for a future mortgage or whatever you want).