The superannuation gap between women and men for both ownership levels and average balances has shrunk “considerably” over the last decade, going from a gap of 9.1 percentage points in 2008 to 4.3 percentage points now.
Roy Morgan’s latest Single Source Survey found that the gap closed for all female age groups, with the biggest gain coming from the 50 – 59 female group which went from having just 54.5 per cent of the male average in 2008 to 69.7 per cent in 2018.
The research company pinned at least part of this progress on publicity given to this issue of superannuation inequity since 2008, but warned that women still face barriers in achieving equity in retirement.
“Despite real gains in employment for women over the last decade, they still lag men in terms of full time employment and as a consequence a greater proportion of women are in part time work with its associated lower annual income,” Roy Morgan industry communications director, Norman Morris, said.
“This contributes to average incomes of only around 75 per cent of the male average, which in turn leads to lower superannuation contributions and balances compared to males.
“In addition to problems associated with lower average incomes, females are more likely to have interrupted employment … Despite these negative factors operating against them, women have made gains in closing the superannuation gap to men.”
Morris also cautioned that superannuation was unlikely to form sufficient retirement income alone for any gender.
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.