You are approaching your 60th birthday and are about to be surprised by an unexpected inheritance from a wealthy relative that you barely remember.
Many years ago your great Aunt, who was always rather odd, left you some money.
She stipulated that you could only access the balance of the funds when you are 60 years old, 40 years on from when the money was deposited.
The good news is that the initial capital she left was $10 million, a huge sum even if nobody quite knew how she came to be so wealthy. The bad news is that the $10 million capital has lost value to the tune of 1.3% a year.
Bummer. Not only did you have to wait to be rich, but also each year there were 1.3% fewer funds. Still, in a few months time when you reach 60 there will be a bank cheque for $6 million in the post, more than enough for a world cruise or two and a luxurious retirement.
Your younger brother was less fortunate. The dowager only bequeathed $1 million to him under the same rules. He has to wait longer for his funds and gets a much smaller cheque of $593,000.
A tidy sum for sure but not quite enough to fund his retirement.
Your three cousins, who soon found out about the unexpected inheritance, were also hoping for something from this distant relative that they only just realized they had. Sure enough, she did not forget them and deposited $100,000 each for when they reach their 60th birthday. They get $59,250 — certainly better than a kick in the teeth but hardly a pension fund.
On the first of your world cruises you mull over the odd situation of financial capital failing to appreciate.
What if your retirement savings, that before your great slice of luck were your only means of support in old age, were being eroded at 1.3% a year?
Each year the amount you had saved up went down a bit, not much admittedly but it went down. Likely you would seek to reinvest your capital quick smart rather than run the risk of not having enough funds for your retirement. Also likely you would fire your investment analyst and rant at everyone you could, looking for a scapegoat for such a fundamental error.
And what bad news it was for your brother. If he had known about that $1 million all those years ago and invested it wisely he would have more money than you right now.
As you sip a G&T on the sundeck you can’t help thinking it funny what we take for granted.
Another unexpected thing
Soil scientists have estimated that the amount of carbon in agricultural soils in Australia has declined by 51% in the last 40 years — that is 1.3% a year.
Soil carbon is a critical environmental asset that drives plant growth because carbon fuels soil biological activity, promotes soil structure, aids infiltration and moisture retention and supports nutrient exchange. Handy material to have and not something to be squandered.
What is worse is that science has little idea about the initial carbon stocks [the capital]. It might have been the equivalent of $10 million in which case we can keep going for a while.
We might even have time to reinvest by adopting smart agricultural practices and get the capital to appreciate again.
The worry is that we may be as uninformed and as poorly off as your cousins.
Here is the original scientific reference for loss of soil carbon [you can find a copy on Google Scholar]:
Zhongkui Luo, Enli Wang, & Osbert Jianxin Sun (2010) Soil carbon change and its responses to agricultural practices in Australian agro-ecosystems: A review and synthesis. Geoderma 155 (2010) 211–223.
And some more articles on soil carbon