Shifting away from traditional high allocations to listed shares and cash/term deposits is unlikely to occur quickly, but retirement income product development will provide attractive options for older SMSF retirees, according to the SMSF Association.
Speaking on the Money Management Retirement Income Webinar, John Maroney, SMSF Association chief executive, said many self-managed super fund (SMSF) retirees had achieved good performance from ASX-listed companies due to franking credits.
“The shifting away from traditional high allocations to listed shares and cash deposits is unlikely to occur quickly,” Maroney said.
“There’s certainly increased interest in diversification and opportunities for this, particularly for those in their 70s and 80s, they have done particularly well over the most of their retirement already.
“They are probably less likely to shift quickly, but again it’s important for them to think about the future direction of their asset allocations and their product selections as well.”
Maroney said if cash returns remained as low as expected and the Age Pension could be accessed through better developed retirement products that would become an important consideration for retirement income planning.
“It’s quite a complex question that will require face-to-face advice, I don’t think many of the older retirees will be attuned to robo-advice,” Maroney said.
“But they do need to be able to access affordable advice from their financial planners, accountants and others involved in the process.”
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.