New research has shown that a large cohort of Australians are misinformed about both their super fund type and performance, prompting a major industry body to call for a Government-sanctioned online tool to help Australians make more informed choices about their superannuation savings.
The Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees (AIST) said the research, which was conducted by Essential Media, showed the need for the Government and industry regulators to develop an easy-to-use online comparator tool.
“Many Australians are languishing in poorly-performing super funds with no easy way of knowing that their fund is a dud. In the 21st century, comparing super funds shouldn’t be that hard,” AIST chief executive, Eva Scheerlinck said, pointing out that even consumers invested in MySuper options often needed to search across multiple websites to compare funds.
It was even harder for members looking to invest in Choice options, as standardised reporting was yet to be enacted for the sector, despite it accounting for almost twice as much savings under management as its MySuper counterpart.
Money Management’s sister publication, Super Review, had this year focused on improving comparability between super fund options, regularly delivering data analysis of performance and risk through FE Analytics and integrating fund data into its site.
Essential Media’s research reinforced the need for such comparison, finding that many retail fund members were unsure of how their fund was performing and one in four mistakenly thought they were in an industry fund.
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.