Use Your Pension for Better Estate Planning

Ruvan J Grobler • September 30, 2026

Most people think of their retirement fund as a retirement tool and nothing more. Contributions go off every month, the statement gets filed away, and the whole thing only really becomes interesting somewhere around 60. But your pension fund, provident fund, preservation fund and retirement annuity are quietly some of the most powerful estate planning instruments available to a South African investor. And the best part is that you don't have to give anything up to use them that way.


That's unusual, estate planning normally involves a trade-off. You move an asset into a trust and lose direct control. You wrap something in a structure and accept a cost. You buy a policy and pay a premium. Here you don't trade anything. You keep investing, you keep growing, and the estate planning benefit simply comes along for the ride.


So what happens to your retirement fund when you pass away?


If you die before retiring from the fund, the benefit is governed by section 37C of the Pension Funds Act. This is one of the most misunderstood provisions in South African law, and it does something quite remarkable: the money does not form part of your estate. It is not distributed according to your will. It is not governed by the Intestate Succession Act if you die without one. It sits entirely outside the normal machinery of deceased estate administration.


Practically, that means three things:

  • Estate duty: The benefit is excluded from your property for estate duty purposes under the Estate Duty Act. No 20% on the portion of the dutiable estate between R3.5 million and R30 million. No 25% above R30 million. Nothing.


  • Executor's fees: Because the capital never enters the estate, it never forms part of the base on which executor's fees are calculated. The general tariff is 3.5% plus VAT — roughly 4%. On R5 million, that's R200 000 you simply don't pay.


  • Liquidity: Your family doesn't wait for the Master of the High Court to accept the Liquidation and Distribution account. In practice, estates take anywhere from nine months to two years. Retirement fund benefits move far faster than that.


And then there's the growth itself. Inside a pension, provident, preservation or retirement annuity fund, there is no income tax, no dividends tax and no capital gains tax on the growth. You can switch between funds and rebalance the portfolio without triggering a single CGT event.


Compare that to a discretionary unit trust, where interest above your annual exemption is taxed at your marginal rate, dividends attract 20% dividends tax, and every switch is a disposal for CGT purposes. Over twenty years that difference is not small.


There is one catch before retirement.


Section 37C gives the fund's board of trustees the discretion to decide who receives the benefit. Your beneficiary nomination form is a guide, not an instruction. The trustees must identify your dependants — legal, factual and future potential — and distribute the benefit in a manner they consider fair and equitable. They can and do deviate from nomination forms.


For most families this works out fine, because the people you would have nominated are usually your dependants anyway. But it does mean that while you are still a member of the fund, you don't have final say. Which brings us to the part that most investors don't know about.


The Pension Funds Act lets you retire from age 55.


From 55 you can retire from a retirement annuity or preservation fund. Not from your job — from the fund. You can still be working, still earning, still contributing elsewhere. This is a product decision, not a life decision, and the two get confused far too often.


When you do, up to one third can be taken as a cash lump sum. The first R550 000 of retirement lump sums across your lifetime is tax-free, though prior withdrawals — including two-pot savings component withdrawals since September 2024 — reduce what's left of that allowance.


The balance buys an annuity, and for planning purposes that generally means a living annuity, from which you can draw between 2.5% and 17.5% of the value each year.


Now look at what that living annuity does for your estate plan. The capital remains outside your dutiable estate. Your nominated beneficiaries are paid directly by the product provider, so no executor's fees are charged on it. And critically, unlike the pre-retirement funds, there are no trustees exercising discretion. Your nomination is binding, and you can nominate anyone — a spouse, a child, a grandchild, a sibling — without them having to prove financial dependence on you.


Your beneficiaries also get to choose how they receive it. They can take the full value as a lump sum, taxed on the retirement lump sum table in your name. They can continue the annuity in their own name and draw a monthly income, taxed at their own marginal rates. Or they can do a bit of both. For a surviving spouse with thirty years ahead of them, the ability to simply continue drawing an income — starting almost immediately, without waiting on the estate — is often worth more than the tax saving.


What about liquidity while you're alive?


This is where the "retire at 55" option quietly solves the problem people worry about most. The usual objection to putting money into retirement structures is that it gets locked away. That objection largely disappears after 55. You have access to a lump sum, and you have an income stream you can adjust annually within the drawdown band. If you hold several retirement annuities, you can retire from them in tranches rather than all at once, which gives you even more control over timing and tax.


So liquidity is not really the constraint that people assume it to be.


Which brings me to how I use this with clients.


If a client has both discretionary investments and compulsory investments, and the ratio between them allows for it, I will often let them draw a larger portion of their income from the discretionary side. It seems counterintuitive. But the discretionary money is the money that will attract estate duty and executor's fees and by drawing more from post-tax capital, you can also reduce income tax paid from living annuity income payments. So we spend the estate-unfriendly capital first and preserve the estate-friendly capital for the people who come after.


It is not a blanket rule. Selling discretionary units may trigger CGT, discretionary capital gives flexibility that a living annuity can't, and drawing it down too aggressively creates its own problems. The ratio has to support it. But where it does, the same income can be drawn in a way that quietly reduces what your family eventually loses to fees and estate duty.


What should you actually check?


Look at your beneficiary nomination forms. They are frequently a decade out of date, they often still name an ex-spouse, and on a living annuity in particular there is no trustee to correct the error for you. Then look at whether the split between your discretionary and compulsory investments is doing any work for you.


Good estate planning isn't about giving things up while you're alive so that someone else benefits when you're not. Done properly, it's about making sure the money you're already investing is sitting in the right place when it needs to move.


Reach out to me at ruvan@bovest.co.za to look at how your retirement structures fit into your broader estate plan.



Ruvan J Grobler FSA® (PGDip Financial Planning)


By PJ Botha • November 3, 2026
In conversations with people, and increasingly in the media, I hear the same message: “Just put everything in the S&P 500. Over time, it will all balance out.” There is sound reasoning behind investing in a broad share index over several decades. But that advice can overlook something important: your investment horizon and your ability to stay invested when markets fall. Even investors with decades ahead may need some of their money much sooner. During the dot-com crash, the S&P 500 fell approximately 49% from its peak in 2000 to its low in 2002. Imagine watching an investment of 1 million fall to roughly 510,000, excluding dividends and currency movements. It is easy to say you would remain invested; experiencing it can feel very different. Even the eventual winners suffered. Amazon’s share price fell approximately 94% between December 1999 and September 2001. An investment of $100,000 would temporarily have been worth around $6,000. Amazon survived and eventually flourished, but other businesses did not: Webvan and eToys entered bankruptcy in 2001, with shareholders facing the loss of their entire investment. Recovery is possible for a broad market; it is never assured for an individual company. If you need to draw an income, fund a major expense or simply find the losses unbearable, you may be forced—or tempted—to sell before markets recover. Different markets followed different paths. While US shares struggled, the JSE All Share initially rose approximately 52% between March 2000 and May 2002, before falling around 37% by April 2003. At that low, it was approximately 4% below its March 2000 starting level, excluding dividends. South Africa provided diversification, but its market still experienced a substantial decline along the way. Bonds also played an important role. Over the three calendar years from 2000 to 2002, US 10-year Treasury bonds delivered a cumulative return of approximately 42% in dollars, while South Africa’s All Bond Index returned approximately 63% in rand, including reinvested income. These are full-period returns, rather than peak-to-trough figures, but they show how different asset classes can support a portfolio when shares struggle. The Rand added another layer. It started 2000 at approximately R6.12 to the dollar and weakened dramatically, briefly reaching around R13.85 in December 2001. It subsequently recovered, briefly revisiting roughly R6.10 in December 2003 and trading around those levels again in July 2004. Rand weakness initially cushioned offshore losses for South African investors; the subsequent strengthening worked in the opposite direction. Moving offshore after a sharp currency decline can therefore introduce its own risks. Artificial intelligence (AI) is creating exciting opportunities today. The internet boom offers a useful reminder: a technology can change the world without every investment in it delivering a good return. The price paid and the expectations built into that price still matter. This does not mean a similar crash is imminent, or that investors should avoid the S&P 500. It means that an investment can be a useful part of a portfolio without being the right place for all your money. At Bovest, we build portfolios around your goals, income needs and investment horizon. Diversification across companies, sectors, countries, currencies and asset classes cannot prevent every loss, but it can reduce dependence on one outcome. The best portfolio is one that supports your financial goals—and that you can live with when markets become uncomfortable.
November 3, 2026
Die spoed en omvang waarteen inligting en ontledings in ons moderne tyd aangebied word, is verstommend. Ons hoef nie meer ure in biblioteke te sit om navorsing te doen nie. Die internet en kunsmatige intelligensie kan ingewikkelde onderwerpe verduidelik, uiteenlopende menings saamvat en ontledings aanbied. Hierteenoor leef ons in een van die mees problematiese tydperke van die wêreldgeskiedenis – geo-politieke verhoudinge is kompleks en gespanne en Westerse lande ervaar uiteenlopende intense uitdagings. Help al die inligting en ontledings ons noodwendig om beter besluite te neem? Ek dink nie so nie. Daar is een vermoë wat die internet nie kan bied nie - dit is menslike wysheid. Die Griekse filosoof, Socrates, sê hoe slimmer ons word hoe meer besef ons hoe min ons eintlik werklik weet: “Ek weet dat ek nie weet nie”. Miskien is dit die eerste teken van wysheid om nie deurgans antwoorde te hê nie, maar om eerder beter vrae te vra. Wysheid is nie om alles te weet nie, maar om te weet wat werklik saak maak. Dan kom ons weer terug by die kernvraag wat ons deesdae moet vra: “Maak die beskikbaarheid van kennis ons noodwendig wyser.” Nie noodwendig nie. Kennis gee vir ons feite en ontledings; wysheid vra egter meer. Dit vra besinning, oordeel, perspektief, selfkennis uit ervaring, en die vermoë om te onderskei tussen wat ons kan doen en wat ons behoort te doen. ‘n Mens kan boeke oor verlies lees, maar die dood van ‘n geliefde leer jou iets wat geen ontleding volledig kan oordra nie. Daar is ook ‘n oënskynlike verband tussen ouderdom en wysheid Ouderdom waarborg nie noodwendig wysheid nie. Sommige mense word oud sonder om besinnende vrae te vra en sonder om ooit uit hul foute te leer. Ervaring, daarteenoor, wat gekoppel is aan nadenke en selfondersoek, bring ‘n soort insig wat nie bloot uit die versameling van feite ontstaan nie. In die Bybelse boek, Spreuke, word wysheid in ‘n groter morele raamwerk geplaas. Kennis behoort met nederigheid, insig en verantwoordelike vermeng te word. Miskien is dit die paradoks van ons tyd: ons beskik oor al hoe meer antwoorde, maar die belangrikste vrae bly op ‘n menslike vlak. Wat is reg? Wat is genoeg? Wanneer moet ek swyg? Hierdie vrae vra meer as inligting. Hulle vra lewenservaring en insig. Die uitdaging van ons tyd is dus nie om meer kennis te versamel nie, maar om te leer hoe om dit wys te gebruik. Want kennis kan ons help om die wêreld te verander. Wysheid help jou om te besluit watter verandering die moeite werd is. Die kern van ons samelewinguitdagings in die tydperk waarin ons lewe is in werklikheid ‘n spanning tussen ons tegnologiese vermoëns en ons menslike vermoë om sinvol te oordeel. Ons het vandag dalk beter instrumente as ooit tevore, maar dit beteken nie dat ons noodwendig beter besluite neem, meer begrip vir mekaar het of gelukkiger saamleef nie. Hoe meer ek van die lewe leer, hoe minder klink absolute sekerheid na wysheid. Geskryf deur Koos van die Waterberge vir Bovest