With International Women’s Day approaching next week, Fidelity has found less than half of women feel confident in their ability to make superannuation contributions.
In a financial independence survey of over 2,000 people, the firm found 47% of women were confident in their ability to make super contributions compared to 63% of men.
Women were also less likely to be contributing to their super and one in three women said they lacked a plan for retirement.
Some 55% of women said they were contributing nothing to their superannuation in a personal capacity while 15% said they were personally contributing 1%-4% of their income.
The firm found men expected they would need more than $1 million in assets in retirement while women expected they would need around $600,000.
More than half of pre-retiree women said financial stress had impacted their health compared to two in five men.
Alva Devoy, managing director of Fidelity International, said: “We are already seeing the potential impact of a lack of financial independence and confidence with women over 55 now the fastest-growing group to experience homelessness in Australia.
“Another Fidelity survey of older Australians shows women continue to less engaged with their finances with only 10% of pre-retiree women saying they feel in control of their finances compared to 25% of men.
“Not only does this leave them at risk in the future, it also has significant impact on their overall wellbeing including both mental and physical health.”
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.