Women tend to hold much less in superannuation than men, with new Roy Morgan research showing a 40 per cent gap in the average balance between the genders.
The research, based on a study of 25,032 Australians aged 14 and over between July 2010 and June 2011, found the average superannuation balance held by women was $92,000 - 40 per cent less than the average balance for men ($154,000).
The median figure betrayed an even larger gap between the genders of 45 per cent, with the female balance at $28,000 and the male balance at $51,000.
The relatively low levels of superannuation for women are largely attributable to their lower average incomes and the fact that they tend to take time off work to have children. In addition, women tend to retire earlier and are less likely to return to work after a career break, according to the research.
Roy Morgan industry communications director Norman Morris said the reduced ability of women to make additional contributions to their superannuation meant more needed to be done to encourage them to plan for their retirement.
"With the introduction of paid parental leave, there will be the potential for increased superannuation contributions by women. But there will also be the need for products more suited to the needs of women and greater government incentives to ensure women are not adversely affected at retirement," Morris said.
Men were also in front when it came to the number of people who actually held super. According to the Roy Morgan research, only 60.9 per cent of women have superannuation, compared with 69 per cent of men.
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.