Consumers do not seem to know the difference between industry and retail funds and are turning to Google to find out, according to a CANSTAR analysis.
The analysis of 77,000 visitors that actively searched for specific superannuation funds found the other hot topics for consumers were super fees and life insurance within super.
CANSTAR wealth manager, Paul O'Connor, said his firm's article on the difference between industry and retail funds was the most popular.
"Given the amount of effort fund groups spend promoting their product offerings and structures, it seems there are still many workers unsure of the difference between the two," he said.
"On the positive side though, it seems that workers are hitting Google to find out just what that difference is, so there is at least that level of awareness out there."
Commenting on super fees, O'Connor said while most providers are offering competitive fees and premiums, some providers are charging substantially more than the average.
"Over time this can have a significant impact on a worker's retirement nest egg, unless that fee is offset with a correspondingly higher return," O'Connor said.
O'Connor noted that 23 per cent of people using the firm's online filtering tools were looking for a super fund that includes income protection.
"Anecdotally, many funds have been telling us that there is a far greater awareness of insurance cover through super now, compared to several years ago. This has no doubt contributed to the rising number of temporary disablement claims that funds overall have been experiencing," he 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.