Sarah and James were doing well. Combined income around R3 million, a bond they were chipping away at, retirement savings in place, two kids in good schools. By most measures, they had their financial act together.
But when they sat down to work through the big questions — are we on track for retirement, what happens if one of us can’t work, is our money in the right place — they realised they couldn’t answer any of them with confidence. Their finances were well-resourced but loosely structured: three separate investment platforms, a corporate pension fund Sarah had never reviewed, no education savings plan to speak of, and wills that hadn’t been touched since their first child was born.
This case study walks through what we found, what we changed, and what the plan looks like now.
Client Profile
| Detail | |
|---|---|
| Ages | Early 40s |
| Family | Married, two children (ages 5 and 8) |
| Combined income | ~R3 million p.a. |
| Sarah | Employed at a large corporate — strong employee benefits including group pension |
| James | Self-employed consultant |
| Annual flat fee | R40,000 p.a. |
Balance Sheet at Engagement
| Asset | Sarah | James | Joint |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retirement savings | R3m (corporate pension fund) | R2m (RA) | — |
| Discretionary investments | R2m | R3m | — |
| Property | — | — | R5m home, R2m bond outstanding |
The Situation
Sarah and James arrived with a question that’s more common than it might sound: we think we’re doing the right things, but we’re not sure we’re doing them in the right order. Their investments had accumulated organically — a bit here, an RA there, some shares James had picked himself — rather than as part of any deliberate strategy. There was no shared view of what retirement looked like, no clarity on whether they were on track to get there, and no protection in place for James, whose income would stop entirely if he couldn’t work.
Sarah’s corporate pension fund was the biggest single asset they had, and neither of them had looked at it in years. It was sitting in the scheme’s default balanced option — not necessarily wrong, but never chosen with any purpose.
Retirement Planning
We modelled multiple retirement scenarios — conservative and optimistic market returns, different contribution rates, early retirement at 55 versus the default 65. The modelling made three things clear: they were broadly on track, but only if contributions were maintained; Sarah’s pension fund was invested too conservatively for someone still 20-plus years from retirement; and James’s RA contributions had room to increase meaningfully from a tax perspective.
We recommended a switch within Sarah’s corporate scheme to a higher-equity, growth-oriented portfolio — a change she had the right to make but hadn’t been prompted to consider. On James’s side, we restructured his RA contributions to take full advantage of the Section 11(k) deduction available on his consulting income.
We also built an early retirement scenario into the plan — not as a fixed goal, but as something to track. If contributions stay on course and markets cooperate, financial independence by 55 is achievable. Having that number made explicit changed how they thought about discretionary spending decisions.
Investment Structuring and Diversification
Sarah and James held five separate investment accounts across three different platforms. There was no coordination between them, overlapping fund exposures, and no clear benchmark against which to measure anything. We consolidated these into a goals-based structure with two distinct pools: a retirement-focused portfolio and a discretionary portfolio for medium-term goals and flexibility.
We also introduced offshore exposure via a tax-efficient rand-denominated global fund — not an externalisation of funds, but meaningful diversification away from SA assets that had been notably absent from both portfolios. Their combined SA equity exposure, before the review, was significantly higher than their circumstances warranted.
The consolidated structure is benchmarked to CPI+4%, reviewed annually, and adjusted as their circumstances change. They now know exactly what their money is trying to do.
Risk and Estate Planning
Sarah had substantial group life and disability cover through her employer. James had none. For a self-employed consultant with two young children and a bond, that was a meaningful gap — not a minor oversight.
We ran a capital needs analysis to determine the cover James actually required: enough to extinguish the bond, fund the children’s education, and replace his income for a reasonable period. We facilitated policies tailored to his situation and income profile. We also updated both their wills — which hadn’t been reviewed since their eldest was born — and advised adding a testamentary trust provision for the children, so that in the event of both parents dying, the capital is managed properly until the children reach adulthood.
Education Planning and Bond Strategy
University costs in South Africa are rising faster than general inflation, and the cost of private or international tertiary education faster still. With two children under ten, the runway is shorter than it feels. We projected realistic university costs across a range of scenarios and set up a dedicated investment plan — monthly contributions, escalating annually, with a mix of local and global exposure. It’s reviewed at each annual meeting.
On the bond, we modelled the trade-off between accelerating repayment and investing surplus cash flow. The answer wasn’t dramatic: a small additional monthly payment reduces the long-term interest cost meaningfully without sacrificing investment momentum. The goal is for the bond to be fully settled before their eldest reaches university. It’s on track.
What Changed
| Area | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Retirement modelling | No targets, no projections | Structured plan with milestones; early retirement tracked |
| Pension fund (Sarah) | Default option, never reviewed | Switched to growth mandate aligned to her timeline |
| Investments | Fragmented across 3 platforms, SA-heavy | Consolidated, goals-based, with offshore diversification |
| Risk cover (James) | None | Life and disability cover in place |
| Estate planning | Wills not updated since first child | Updated; testamentary trust added |
| Education saving | Not started | Dedicated plan, annual review |
| Bond strategy | Minimum repayments only | Structured; targeted for settlement before tertiary costs |
Frequently Asked Questions
How much does financial planning cost for a professional couple?
Henceforward charges Sarah and James a flat fee of R40,000 per year — covering financial planning, investment oversight, risk and estate review, and ongoing access. At a typical AUM fee of 0.5% on their R15 million balance sheet, the equivalent cost would be R75,000 annually. Our fee is the same regardless of how their portfolio grows.
What is a testamentary trust and do we need one?
A testamentary trust is created by your will and comes into effect on your death. It holds and manages assets on behalf of minor children until they reach the age you specify — typically 21 or 25. If you have young children and meaningful assets, it's worth serious consideration. Without one, the Guardian's Fund holds minor inheritances until age 18, with limited flexibility.
Is it better to pay off a bond or invest?
It depends on the after-tax cost of your bond versus the expected after-tax return on the investment. In most cases, a blend works better than choosing one or the other: maintaining some investment momentum while reducing long-term interest costs. The right answer is different for every household — it requires modelling your specific numbers, not a general rule.
A Plan That Fits the Life
Sarah and James didn’t have a financial problem. They had a coordination problem — good decisions made in isolation, without a structure that tied them together. What changed wasn’t primarily the investments. It was the clarity: a single, coherent plan they both understood, reviewed twice a year, and could make decisions against.
Their fee is R40,000 per year. On a combined balance sheet of around R15 million, that’s considerably less than a percentage-based model would cost — and unlike a percentage fee, it doesn’t grow automatically as their portfolio does. The advice is aligned to outcomes, not account size.
If you’re a professional couple with a reasonable financial position and no clear plan around it, a structured financial plan is worth the conversation — before the complexity grows further.
If you’re earning well but haven’t had a proper financial plan put together — retirement modelled, risk reviewed, estate in order — we’re happy to work through it with you. It’s a practical conversation, not a sales pitch. For more on how we work with professional clients, have a look here.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Henceforward (Pty) Limited is an authorised representative of Graviton Wealth Management (FSP 8772). Tax figures referenced are indicative — verify current rates and thresholds at sars.gov.za before making any decisions. Exchange control allowances are subject to SARB policy. Consult a qualified financial or tax advisor for advice specific to your circumstances.