Changing times lead to
changing family structures. And, that further leads to different
classifications. For instance, sample these acronyms: DINK - Double
Income No Kids, DISK - Double Income Single Kid and SISK - Single
Income Single Kid. Confused? And as these different classifications
emerge, financial planning for them also has to be tackled in a
different manner. Here we look at the above mentioned families and how
can they achieve their financial goals.
First, let's see why have these acronyms have emerged so strongly in our society during the last decade or so:
More
educated women wanting to carve out a career for themselves, which they
continue after marriage, leading to no or one child, and that too quite
a few years later than in the past
Missing
family support in bringing up children because of geographical
distances leading to focus on creating of a corpus before having
children
Lesser number of children so that the couple can offer the best facilities to its child
One
of the big advantages of such families is that they have immense
financial independence at a very young age. Therefore the ability to
create substantial assets increases very early in life.
However,
one should remember that these categorisations are based on the
couple's choice and can change over time. That is, a DINK family
generally does become a DISK family.
Let
us look at a scenario where there are three couples, A, B and C. Let us
make certain assumptions for the sake of uniformity in comparison. Let
us assume that all husbands are aged 25 and wives aged 23. Family A is
a DINK family and plans to have a child after eight years. Family B is
also double income, but plans to have a child after three years. In
family C, only the husband is working and the couple plans to have a
child after three years. The combined income of families A and B are Rs
10 lakh (Rs 1 million) whereas family C has an income of Rs 700,000.
As
far as expenditure goes, we consider similar spending habits, to the
tune of Rs 400,000 a year before the child is born. We also assume an
increase in expenses of another Rs 200,000 a year after childbirth for
21 years, till their children become independent.
All
the working members will retire after 35 years. Inflation is assumed at
6 per cent per annum and growth in their assets - which is a mix of
debt, equity and other asset classes, at 12 per cent a year. Income and
expenses are expected to grow at 15 per cent a year.
All
the families want to start saving their annual surplus for their
retirement and when they have children, they want to invest a third of
their savings for a period of 21 years for their child, with the
balance continuing to go into their retirement corpus. Let us see they
will fare, given their income and expense commitments
Money matter :
DINK DISK SISK
(Rs. LAKH)
|
|
DINK
(Rs Lakh)
|
DISK
(Rs Lakh)
|
SISK
(Rs Lakh)
|
|
Combined
family income
|
10
|
10
|
7
|
|
Annual
expense pre-child
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
|
Annual
surplus pre-child
|
6
|
6
|
6
|
|
Years
to childbirth
|
8
|
3
|
3
|
|
Annual
expenses post-child
|
6
|
6
|
6
|
|
Investment
for child's future
for 21 years
|
1.33
|
1.33
|
0.33
|
|
Anual
investment for
retirement for 21 years
|
2.67
|
2.67
|
0.67
|
|
Annual
investment for retirement
for other years
|
4
|
4
|
1
|
|
Child's
corpus in today's
value at age 21
|
89.8
|
74.6
|
18.6
|
|
REtirement
corpus in today's
value after 35 years
|
651.7
|
622.3
|
242.8
|
We can see from the above table that Family A
(DINK) will have a Rs 6.5 crore (Rs 65 million) as retirement package
and another and Rs 90 lakh (Rs 9 million) for the child at 21 at
today's value. Family B (DISK) will have Rs 6.2 crore (Rs 62 million)
for themselves and Rs 75 lakh (Rs 7.5 million) for the child.
However, Family C can only have Rs 19 lakh (Rs 1.9 million) for the child and Rs 2.4 crore (Rs 24 million) for retirement.
One
should note that these figures have been arrived at without considering
taxes on investment income and assuming that these families invest all
their surplus without having other needs like a house or car, etc. for
sake of simplicity.
An analysis of the
above figures shows us that Family A, which stays DINK for eight years,
has not gained substantially more than Family B by postponing a child
for another five years. The total extra gain for Family A is only Rs 45
lakh (Rs 4.5 million).
However, both
families have gained substantially over the SISK family. This is due to
the fact that both families have double incomes, while Family C does
not. Therefore, we can conclude from this case that postponing having a
child does not have as much financial effect on a family than having
both spouses working, provided this can continue after childbirth.
We
have briefly seen these three types of modern families, and the
financial effects of the same. However, the numbers could change
dramatically depending on the lifestyles of the couples.