Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 242

Five challenges for post-retirement products

The concept of a post-retirement investment product was flagged in the Super System (‘Cooper’) Review in 2009-2010, but accumulation was the main area of focus for superannuation at that time. The concept, and associated CIPR acronym (‘Comprehensive Income Product for Retirement’) was an important recommendation in the Financial System (‘Murray’) Inquiry in 2014. It was noted that a 15% - 30% uplift in retirement income was possible, based on modelling by the Australian Government Actuary.

CIPR is a good idea in concept. However, taking an idea from concept to in-practice in a big complex system is difficult. That is the challenge currently faced by the policymakers at Treasury. Where they land will have a significant industry and system impact one way or the other. The stakes are high.

There is a strong commitment to continue down the CIPR path (or MyRetirement, as the Government plans to name it). An important next step announced last week by Kelly O’Dwyer is the proposed development of a retirement covenant which would require superannuation fund trustees to design and offer appropriate retirement income solutions to their members. An advisory group of industry professionals has been created to provide feedback to the Government.

CIPR and the desire to pool risk

The motivation for CIPR is that there is little pooling of longevity risk in post-retirement. Many people are frugal with their superannuation savings, a result of a combination of conservatism and an element of bequest motive. These savings were tax advantaged and remain tax advantaged while in an account-based pension. The outcome is a below potential post-retirement lifestyle and a tax advantaged bequest, neither of which meet the objectives of Government policy.

The concept of a CIPR is a default (i.e. unless otherwise selected by an individual) solution designed broadly to provide constant income for life, regardless of lifespan. This sounds intuitive, but as responses to the consultation paper identified, is difficult in practice.

What are the main immediate challenges?

I would summarise the main challenges, in order of priority as:

1. Reconciling the difference in objectives between policymakers and super fund trustees who act on behalf of their members

The preferences of the Government implied by the consultation paper and the design of the proposed Actuarial Certification Tests (required to be passed for a post-retirement product to be certified as a CIPR) suggest a focus on expected retirement income with little concern for variability of outcomes, the value of residual benefits or access to capital.

In practice, a trustee of a super fund needs to respect these other preferences (variability, residual benefits and access to capital). Consider two examples:

First, a male primary income earner, who unfortunately dies in the first year of retirement (around a 1% chance) and the trustee’s CIPR has no reversionary benefit for the surviving partner.

Second, a non-home owning member requires access to capital for one of many possible lifetime events, but unfortunately the trustee’s CIPR provides no access to capital.

Surely, a trustee is obliged to consider these issues in the design of their post-retirement default solution. There has been case law in the UK which has confirmed as much.

Do these differences mean much? Resoundingly yes! I was part of an industry project to establish a sensible set of preferences for trustees to assume on behalf of their members. These preferences were then developed into a metric known as the Member’s Default Utility Function (affectionately ‘MDUF’, see ‘Utility function’ research wins Retirement Innovation Award for more). At Mine Super, we then used MDUF to calculate the benefits of CIPR and we found that the proposed CIPR framework actually subtracted from retirement outcomes (Mine’s submissions are here and here).

A possible solution is that the trustee of a super fund must codify their own set of preferences that they assume on behalf of their members.

2. Incorporating the age pension into CIPR design

The original CIPR consultation paper framed a post-retirement solution which focused on consistent income for life in absence of the age pension. In practice, this guarantees an inconsistent retirement income profile for households.

Perhaps policymakers are frustrated at the current status quo of using an account-based pension and relying on the age pension for longevity insurance. However, ignoring the existence of the age pension risks over-insuring against longevity risk especially for members with lower retirement savings and experiencing lower income as a result. I believe that the age pension should be incorporated into CIPR design.

3. Interaction with the means testing for social security

Concurrently, the Department of Social Security (DSS) is developing means-testing rules for lifetime income stream products such as life annuities, deferred life annuities, and group pooling equivalents. The proposed rules appear fair in isolation but deeper analysis at Mine Super suggests that the treatment of account-based pension solutions is much more generous.

When we account for the new rules, incorporate the age pension, and assume the sensible preferences of MDUF, we find no rational demand for lifetime income stream products. In fact, the optimal solution would be not too dissimilar to the status quo (use the account-based pension in conjunction with the age pension).

Hopefully DSS and Treasury will together find a solution so that this issue does not become a sizable disruptor to the intentions of CIPR.

4. A reassessment of the realistic gains from CIPR

When the Murray Inquiry suggested that a CIPR could deliver a 15% - 30% uplift in retirement outcomes, I was perplexed. Eventually we got to the bottom of this claim: it was based on a hypothetical product design and only assessed retirement income with no value placed on residual benefits or access to capital. I feel the hypothetical product would not be acceptable to the public and could create risk for any trustee who used it.

A realistic improvement in retirement outcomes (using a more holistic measure, such as MDUF) would be in the order of 5% - 10%, still a large number at a system level.

5. Industry cost and ability to opt out

The cost and effort of developing a CIPR could be large, much larger than that associated with MySuper. But would this ‘retirement covenant’ allow for some funds to opt out and not offer a CIPR? What would happen to members of those funds at retirement? Would these funds be allowed to be specialist accumulation-only funds? Could the covenant be used to drive further consolidation of the super fund industry?

CIPR could provide a high-quality safety net but it could prove under-utilised as members leave for reasons such as becoming more engaged or after receiving financial advice. It could be a lot of industry expenses if many people opt out, and getting the system-level cost/benefit analysis correct is a difficult challenge.



These are exciting times for retirement planning. While some people may feel regulatory fatigue, I find the opportunity to be part of a system delivering good retirement outcomes a great motivator.

There are complex issues to be resolved. Broadly, everyone is pushing in the same direction but there remains a large dispersion amongst stakeholders. With such a complex area, there is the chance of a policy mistake. The welfare cost and industry cost of a policy mistake could be large. This risk is partly reduced by the quality of the advisory group which has been assembled.


David Bell is Chief Investment Officer at Mine Super. Estelle Liu is a Quantitative Analyst in Mine’s Investment team. Together, they led the working group which generated the Member’s Default Utility Function, an award-winning, freely available, advanced framework for assessing retirement outcome design. The views expressed in this article are their own and may differ from those at Mine Super, a sponsor of Cuffelinks.


A defining year for super requires your input

CIPRs are coming and that’s exciting

Retirement income products - what's ideal?


Most viewed in recent weeks

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

House prices surge but falls are common and coming

We tend to forget that house prices often fall. Direct lending controls are more effective than rate rises because macroprudential limits affect the volume of money for housing leaving business rates untouched.

Survey responses on pension eligibility for wealthy homeowners

The survey drew a fantastic 2,000 responses with over 1,000 comments and polar opposite views on what is good policy. Do most people believe the home should be in the age pension asset test, and what do they say?

100 Aussies: five charts on who earns, pays and owns

Any policy decision needs to recognise who is affected by a change. It pays to check the data on who pays taxes, who owns assets and who earns the income to ensure an equitable and efficient outcome.

Three good comments from the pension asset test article

With articles on the pensions assets test read about 40,000 times, 3,500 survey responses and thousands of comments, there was a lot of great reader participation. A few comments added extra insights.

The sorry saga of housing affordability and ownership

It is hard to think of any area of widespread public concern where the same policies have been pursued for so long, in the face of such incontrovertible evidence that they have failed to achieve their objectives.

Latest Updates


$1 billion and counting: how consultants maximise fees

Despite cutbacks in public service staff, we are spending over a billion dollars a year with five consulting firms. There is little public scrutiny on the value for money. How do consultants decide what to charge?

Investment strategies

Two strong themes and companies that will benefit

There are reasons to believe inflation will stay under control, and although we may see a slowing in the global economy, two companies should benefit from the themes of 'Stable Compounders' and 'Structural Winners'.

Financial planning

Reducing the $5,300 upfront cost of financial advice

Many financial advisers have left the industry because it costs more to produce advice than is charged as an up-front fee. Advisers are valued by those who use them while the unadvised don’t see the need to pay.


Many people misunderstand what life expectancy means

Life expectancy numbers are often interpreted as the likely maximum age of a person but that is incorrect. Here are three reasons why the odds are in favor of people outliving life expectancy estimates.

Investment strategies

Slowing global trade not the threat investors fear

Investors ask whether global supply chains were stretched too far and too complex, and following COVID, is globalisation dead? New research suggests the impact on investment returns will not be as great as feared.

Investment strategies

Wealth doesn’t equal wisdom for 'sophisticated' investors

'Sophisticated' investors can be offered securities without the usual disclosure requirements given to everyday investors, but far more people now qualify than was ever intended. Many are far from sophisticated.

Investment strategies

Is the golden era for active fund managers ending?

Most active fund managers are the beneficiaries of a confluence of favourable events. As future strong returns look challenging, passive is rising and new investors do their own thing, a golden age may be closing.



© 2021 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.

Website Development by Master Publisher.