There is a great deal of difference between men and women when it comes to superannuation, particularly in the areas of fund balances, super knowledge and risk tolerance.
The latest study from CoreData, titled Women in Super, found the super knowledge gap between the sexes was significant, with women twice as likely to not know their super balance than men.
But it seems many women realise they don’t know enough about superannuation, with more than one third of women rating their super knowledge as poor or very poor, compared with just 15 per cent of men.
Men were much more likely to classify their superannuation knowledge and experience as strong or very strong (30 per cent), compared to just 14 per cent of women.
Superannuation was also the number one area that women wished to improve their knowledge in (51 per cent).
The survey of 1,059 people during May and June also found the average superannuation balance for female respondents was just $128,598 — almost half of the average balance for male respondents at $233,961.
This is a particular concern given that women tend to live longer and therefore require a greater amount of superannuation.
These numbers were reflected in the finding that females were significantly more likely to say they could not choose the date of their retirement (44 per cent) and had to keep working as long as possible, compared to 35 per cent of males.
More than one third of women (36 per cent) also said it was unlikely they would be able to finance their own retirement, compared to 28 per cent of males.
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.