Satisfaction in self-managed superannuation funds (SMSFs) and public sector funds increased in March while industry and retail super funds decreased, according to research.
Roy Morgan’s latest super satisfaction report found SMSFs had the highest level of customer satisfaction (75%), up 0.3% from February followed by public sector funds on 74.5% (up 0.3%). However, satisfaction with industry funds fell 1.1% in the month to 64.4% while retail funds were down 0.2% to 60%.
The research house’s chief executive, Michele Levine, said industry funds based on employees in hospitality and retail industry that were particularly exposed to the Government’s early access to super due to financial hardship brought by the COVID-19 pandemic had many workers stood down in recent weeks.
“A majority of industry funds had declining month-on-month satisfaction in March and the challenge for all superannuation funds going forward will be finding ways to maintain customer satisfaction amid trying market conditions, reduced returns and ongoing uncertainty,” she said.
The average satisfaction rating across all super funds, the report said, was 64.2% in March, up 3.4% a year ago. However, Roy Morgan noted that this annual comparison missed a fall of 0.6% in March after the ASX 200 market peaked in late February.
“Driving this fall has been a monthly decline of 1.1% for industry funds in March. In the last month the concern for industry Funds and retail funds in particular is about how many Australians will take up the Federal Government’s $20,000 super fund withdrawal option over the next six months,” Levine 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.