A UBank survey of customers with self-managed super funds (SMSFs) has revealed that a third have more than 50 per cent of their SMSF in cash.
UBank, National Australia Bank’s direct bank, found that more than half the respondents stated they have no plans to alter their current cash allocation despite improving economic conditions in Australia.
The survey revealed that a significant proportion of respondents blamed the poor performance and high fees of managed funds for their move to a SMSF, and 75 per cent said having control of their own financial destiny was the reason for their move.
“The results of this survey show that more and more people want to take tight control of their own financial destiny at a time of ongoing caution about the economic climate,” said UBank general manager Gerd Schenkel. “That caution is also reflected in the fact that people are reluctant to reduce the cash component in their SMSF — despite economic data suggesting Australia has weathered the storm relatively well.”
The survey also found that 31 per cent were optimistic about the performance of their SMSF in 2010, although 26 per cent stated they still felt cautious about the year ahead.
Some 95 per cent are not considering closing their SMSF to return to managed funds; 59 per cent like the flexibility that an SMSF provides; and nearly half claim the media influences their decisions about the allocation of their investments between cash and equities.
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.