Superannuation funds need to drive insurance in super awareness as 72% of super members trust their fund to help them make informed decisions about their life insurance, according to a report.
Life insurer MetLife’s ‘Value of Life Insurance Report’ found super funds had a critical role to play in driving awareness of insurance inside super and empowering members to make decisions about their cover with confidence.
The report found another 70% of members trusted their fund to help them understand how much life insurance they needed.
The report noted the Your Future, Your Super stapling measure’s financial impact needed to be considered more broadly.
“[It needs to take] into consideration occupation-based insurance that may be inappropriate for less engaged members who remain in funds after subsequent career changes, high-risk occupations which is not broadly available nor covered, exclusions specific to members and how they can be carried across funds, employers potentially providing advice to employees on commencing employment, impact on pricing and risk assumptions underpinning insurance contracts, to name a few,” the report said.
“There is also currently greater impetus for the entire ecosystem of superannuation funds to be interconnected with all service providers to facilitate and assist with the legislative changes to ensure a frictionless impact on the customer.
“It is more important than ever to increase awareness and engage so that members can make informed decisions about their insurance needs.”
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.