Only 41 per cent of women and 53 per cent of men in Australia are on track to achieving a comfortable retirement income, according to Mercer's latest study.
The study found that Baby Boomers were the least prepared generation in terms of super and that only 16 per cent of Australians made regular voluntary contributions.
Gen X outperformed all other generations with higher incomes and higher levels of voluntary contributions.
Mercer said while 94 per cent of taxpayers earning over $100,000 were on track to a financially secure retirement, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) standard for what annual income equates to a "comfortable lifestyle" was relatively low — $59,160 for a couple.
Mercer senior partner, David Knox, said: "The correct investment strategy choice is crucial to ensuring financial security in retirement. Members must also consolidate their accounts and be strongly encouraged to regularly make voluntary contributions".
"Super funds play a critical role in recognising where retirement income gaps are occurring and encouraging underprepared members to actively take control of their financial future," he said.
"Funds must also consider what retirement income is more appropriate for each of their members. Will a high income couple really be happy living off just $59,160 per annum in retirement?"
Knox said the study should act as a warning to both funds and members to act now in order to ensure the financial security of Australians in the future.
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.