Industry super funds continue to hold top spot when it comes to satisfaction with financial performance compared to their retail fund counterparts, Roy Morgan research showed.
The Single Source survey revealed industry funds had a 59.2 per cent satisfaction rate, compared to retail funds' 56.5 per cent. Both groups saw a rise in satisfaction levels over the last 12 months, with industry funds up 5.7 percentage points and retail funds up by 5.3 percentage points.
"Despite considerable fluctuations in satisfaction over the last twelve years, the lead held by industry funds has changed little, with industry funds ahead by 3.0% points in 2002 and 2.7% points in December 2014," the research said.
Industry funds scored an 80.4 per cent satisfaction rate among those with high balances ($250,000+), while retail funds lag behind at 73.2 per cent.
They account for only about 10 per cent of members but hold around 43 per cent of total super funds.
There is a bigger gap in satisfaction between the groups among those holding balances over $5,000, with industry fund members nudging ahead.
But for those who hold less than $5,000, retail funds performed slightly better, scoring 45.7 per cent compared to 44.8 per cent, but this section makes up only 0.3 per cent of total super balances.
Among industry funds, ESSSuper had the highest satisfaction rate at 81.3 per cent, while Plum scored the highest among retail funds (61.6 per cent).
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.