Young Australians are largely unengaged by and indifferent to superannuation and retirement planning, research found.
A study by the Centre for International Finance and Regulation (CIFR) found super fund members between 25 and 34 years old have low knowledge on the basics of super.
The online survey of 994 respondents found almost two thirds of young Australians struggle to put a finger on the age of super access, the definition of investment options.
"At the risk of overgeneralising respondent behaviour, young adults appear to be unengaged by and uninterested in their superannuation accounts or retirement," the University of Melbourne's Professor Ian Ramsay said.
"At the same time, their attitudes towards superannuation and retirement planning could best be described as worried and sceptical."
Ramsay added that similar to the super system itself, knowledge, behaviour and attitudes towards super among Australians is still immature.
Those who had studied an area relevant to finance or commerce had better super knowledge, while males over-estimated their knowledge of super.
Only one third thinks they are well informed about super, while most are not confident about retirement planning or the outlook for retirement, with only 6.5 per cent saying they had a retirement plan.
The study found only one-third read all or most of their periodic statements, while most pay attention to balance, fees and charges. Only one third think reading a periodic statement is easy.
Only 40 per cent think they can weigh the pros and cons of a super fund information pack without needing help.
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.