A new report has found that those superannuation funds which focus on marketing their advice services also experience a boost in client engagement.
The CoreData 2014 Post-retirement Report found financial planning and financial counselling are the most valued super fund services by both pre- and post-retiree members, regardless of whether their super fund offered them or not.
However, only 13 per cent of those currently using a financial planner use one inside their super fund as a primary source of advice.
Industry funds in particular have low levels of advice take-up, with only two in five members using their financial planning services.
This, according to CoreData head of super & SMSFs Salvador Saiz, reinforces the need for industry funds to better engage their members to take up advice.
“There still remain a large number of funds for which advice is not a key service or which is not deemed beneficial for their membership,” Saiz said.
“On the other hand there are a number of funds that have realised the value of advice as a key retention and engagement tool and have focused their efforts on building their internal advice capabilities even further,” he added.
“It’s no surprise that these funds have seen a direct link between these efforts (the marketing/communication of advice services) and increased member retention and engagement.”
The research report also found low levels of additional contributions in the last 12 months have endangered retirement goals for many Australians, identifying the need for education about retirement products.
Jim Chalmers has defended changes to the Future Fund’s mandate, referring to himself as a “big supporter” of the sovereign wealth fund, amid fierce opposition from the Coalition, which has pledged to reverse any changes if it wins next year’s election.
In a new review of the country’s largest fund, a research house says it’s well placed to deliver attractive returns despite challenges.
Chant West analysis suggests super could be well placed to deliver a double-digit result by the end of the calendar year.
Specific valuation decisions made by the $88 billion fund at the beginning of the pandemic were “not adequate for the deteriorating market conditions”, according to the prudential regulator.