Staff at Australia's superannuation funds believe the single biggest barrier to boosting their salaries is the lack of opportunities in the sector.
Data from the Super Review Salary Survey found that 28 per cent of super fund staff members said they lacked opportunities to grow their salary, with 15 per cent saying poor organisational management was to blame, and 10 per cent pointed the finger at clients undervaluing their services.
While one super fund chief executive reported that a "dominant and ignorant chairman" was preventing him from reaching the salary he believed he should be paid.
The survey found that a fifth of respondents reported earning less than $90,000 a year, while 16 per cent said they took home more than $190,000 per annum — with one per cent saying their income was in excess of $300,000.
When asked how much they believed their salary should be for their current role, 20 per cent said they deserved to be paid over $190,000, with four per cent believing a salary of more than $300,000 would be fair remuneration.
While super staff were largely keen to see their salaries rise, almost two thirds of respondents said they felt valued by their employer, while just 14 per cent said they were not. The survey also revealed that just 10 per cent of super fund employees said they were actively looking for a new job, with more than a third of respondents reporting they were not even open to offers of alternative employment.
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.