Superannuation funds are making a dangerous assumption that members aren't engaged, according to managing director of Shannon Company Michael Daddo.
Labelling members as disengaged assumed that they hadn't found the right channel to engage with super funds or the right level to engage on, when in fact they were full of questions about superannuation, Daddo told delegates at the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees marketing symposium.
ME Bank research showed that people recognise that super is one of the key drivers of financial research, but also showed that 70 per cent of industry super funds and union members have low financial confidence, general manager of marketing for ME Bank Aimee Suchard-Lowe said.
That proved that something was holding members back from being truly engaged with super, and not necessarily that they didn't care, she said.
Chief executive of the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors Ann Byrne said members needed more communication about their investments, not more marketing.
Super funds also shouldn't forget employers and should make sure these employers understand the fund and why their staff should be in it, Byrne said.
Speaking on a personal level, chief of superannuation services at Equipsuper John Farrington questioned how much real value marketing was providing for members.
Marketing doesn't have as much impact in super as relationships with clients do, he said.
Most members don't read the information sent to them, don't buy account-based pensions as a result of direct marketing, and prefer face-to-face relationships, Farrington said.
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.