Self-managed superannuation funds (SMSFs) scored a satisfaction rating of 72.2 per cent in the latest Roy Morgan ‘Superannuation Satisfaction' report, well ahead of industry funds (48.7 per cent) and retail funds (41.9 per cent).
Based on a yearly survey of 30,000 individuals with super, satisfaction with the financial performance of super in the six months to January 2013 was 46.6 per cent, 3.7 percentage points lower than 12 months ago.
Levels of satisfaction also increased with the balance held — balances under $100,000 scored 43.7 per cent, increasing to 48.7 per cent for balances of $100,000-$249,999, 56.9 per cent for $250,000-$499,000 and 65.7 per cent for $500,000 or more.
Satisfaction with retail funds — which have historically low scores — continues to lag the industry average (currently by 4.7 percentage points), although this has reduced from the 5.4 percentage points reported in January 2009.
Roy Morgan industry communications director Norman Morris said that despite account balances having a strong correlation with super fund performance and, ultimately, satisfaction, the issue regarding who manages the super also has a major impact.
"It appears that satisfaction with superannuation has a lot to do with the level of engagement, which is higher among self-managed funds and higher balances," he said.
"The poor satisfaction levels of retail funds across all balance levels obviously are of concern, considering that financial planners are more likely to direct their client to them."
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.