Bill and Mary

A Big Super entity called Money Managers has done a better than most [but still a "One Year Wonder"] paper on Grandfather vs Deeming and here is their example.

They have not given "silly names" to this couple so we call them Bill and Mary.  Further info says:

Will clients be better or worse off? 

The answer is very much a case of “it depends”. 
To understand the impact of the proposed change, we have considered a hypothetical couple and modelled their Government income support payments (in this case, the age pension) on different levels of superannuation. 
In each case we have taken a homeowner couple, both aged 65, and with the same level of assets except for their ABP.
For the purposes of the ABP, we have assumed it will automatically revert to the surviving pensioner. The life expectancy, for the “deductible amount” calculation is 21.62 years (ie, for a 65-year-old female).
It is therefore irrelevant if the primary pensioner is the female, or the male with a reversion to his spouse. 
Each scenario was modelled to firstly consider the impact on the couple’s combined age pension under the assets test, and then to consider it from an income test where the ABP commenced on or after 1 January 2015, and secondly, prior to 1 January 2015. 
In each case where we modelled the income test impact based on the grandfather income testing (ie, pre-1 January 2015), we made the assumption that the ABP income drawn, less the deductible amount, plus deemed income, did not exceed the income test threshold (ie, $276.00 per fortnight).

This case stands above most as they have not simply advised the couple to use the Min Drawdown, but it seems they went for the next easiest [for them] option of match the Drawdown to the historical Interest of the Fund, meaning that when the couple are supposed to die they have exactly the same amount as they started with [to leave to "interested parties", eg the Advisor].

So using a full 20 year projection, the year #1 result of course holds throughout because the Capital remains as the elephant in the room and neither Grandfather nor Deeming have an effect via Income Testing.  The total Age Pension is 86.95% of the Maximum, or $605,289 total over 20 years.

Now we say "better than most" because the results for Min Drawdown say the plan above got Bill and Mary $36,761 over 20 years extra Age Pension, for simple reason that for Min Drawdown the elephant grew bigger.

But the logical solution for the couple [ie any couple] is to USE their Super Funds for THEIR enjoyment, so we asked the LOPS to tell us how much Drawdown to deplete funds at 20 year mark [their Advisor will not be pleased].  As you would expect from all other results here, they are $65,364 BETTER off with the New Rules than under Grandfathering getting 96.36% of the Max Age Pension.

So same message here ie throw BOTH elephant and Grandfather overboard [as well as your Advisor of course] and it's the good old "we got the money".