Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 590

Global pension reforms and how Australia can improve

In 2009, we issued the first Melbourne Mercer Global Pension Index, which compared and ranked 11 pension system around the world. Although it had a modest and uncertain beginning, this benchmarking exercise has continued to grow so that the 2024 Mercer CFA Institute Global Pension Index (MCGPI) considers 48 pension systems covering two-thirds of the world’s population.

Its growth and relevance have grown way beyond my initial expectations. Of course, one of the challenges has been to frame questions that are relevant to all pension systems given the huge diversity, and ask questions that will be understood by all, even when English is not the first language. Notwithstanding the differences, the primary purpose of pensions is similar and so we have been able to learn about challenges and solutions from each system.

The changes since inception

As I review our reports over the last 16 years prior to my retirement in 2025, there are several key trends and developments that will continue to influence the ever expanding global pension industry.

One of the key changes has been the global trend away from defined benefit (DB) employer-sponsored schemes to defined contribution (DC) arrangements where individuals bear most of the risks. Although Australia may have been ahead of this development with the introduction of compulsory superannuation in 1992, the world is following. Even the Netherlands, which again topped the MCGPI this year, is reforming its very well regarded pension system from DB to a collective DC arrangement.

In 2023 the OECD reported that

“More than 50% of pension assets were held in (occupational) DC plans or personal plans in 19 out of the 21 reporting OECD economies.”

This movement from DB to DC has also influenced some of the questions we have asked in the Index. For example, 16 years ago we were concerned with the separation of pension assets from the employer, the level of in-house assets held by a private sector pension plan and the minimum level of funding required for DB funds.

While these topics remain in the MCGPI, we are now more focused on the requirements relating to disclosure and transparency. That is, if individuals are now bearing the risks and more responsibility, it is critical that they have access to appropriate information. Hence our questions now explore the requirements for the pension plan’s annual report, including investment performance, and the contents of the member’s annual statement including income projections (not yet required in Australia) and showing the level of fees deducted from the account.

During this 16-year period, we have also strengthened the questions relating to the governance of pension plans as this topic has received increased focus around the world. Since 2009, we have added questions relating to codes of personal conduct, ESG, conflict of interest policies, anti-bribery and corruption policies, cyber security, and the reporting of data breaches. In essence, each of these additions have encouraged governments and policy makers to strengthen the governance of pension plans.

However, it is not just the structure and operations of pension and superannuation plans that have changed during this period. The world’s demography has changed significantly.

Fertility rates have fallen considerably, and this trend is likely to continue. The average fertility rate in the 16 nations in the 2011 Index was 1.75, even then below the required fertility rate of 2.1 for a stable population. By 2024, the average fertility rate for these nations was 1.45. Australia’s fertility rate in 2023 was 1.50, the lowest ever recorded.

While the world is aging faster than previously expected, there is also clear evidence that more people are working longer. For example, the average labour force participation rate for those aged 55-64 in the original 11 nations in 2009 was 59.6%.  By 2024, this average had increased to 70.6%. Interestingly, 5% of the Australian labour force is already over age 65. This has implications for employers as well as the rules relating to the Age Pension.

Notwithstanding the increased participation in the workforce at older ages, the ageing population will place increased pressure on pension systems around the world. Hence, we are likely to see some governments increasing normal retirement ages while others will increase the eligibility age for the state pension. In some cases, future benefits may even be reduced.

Another global development has been the increased focus on the gender pension gap. It is clear that in most pension systems, including Australia, the average retirement benefit for women is much lower than the average male benefit. Hence, in recent years we have added questions relating to the availability of additional retirement benefits for those on paid parental leave or those caring for young children, as well as the requirement to use unisex lifetime annuity rates.

How Australia fares

For most years of the Index, the Australian retirement income system has ranked in the top quartile of pension systems around the world given our relatively high level and affordable Age Pension, good coverage of the superannuation system and strong regulation. However, Australia has never attained the coveted A grade. Without a requirement to take part, but not all, of future retirement benefits as an income stream, Australia is likely to retain its current B+ grade. Such income `products could include longevity products as well as account-based pensions with minimum and maximum drawdown rates. In addition, the introduction of compulsory income projections on annual member statements would highlight the need to focus on income streams.

The government has made an important move to reduce the gender super gap by paying SG on government-funded paid parental leave. But it could go further. For example, by introducing a government superannuation contribution for those caring for young children and requiring unisex lifetime annuities, as occurs in Europe.

In its 16-year history, the Index has benchmarked pension systems around the world with objective data and has recommended improvements for every system.  There is no perfect system! Recently the OECD commented that:

“The pension policy debate in OECD countries has switched from pandemic responses back to a focus on more long-term structural issues. The question of how to address the impact of population ageing on pension systems has moved back to centre stage.”

By considering the policies, benefit designs and regulations of the better systems in the MCGPI, every system can improve the financial outcomes of future retirees.

 

Dr. David Knox is a Senior Partner and Senior Actuary at Mercer Australia. This article is general information and not investment advice, and does not consider the circumstances of any person.

 

  •   11 December 2024
  • 6
  •      
  •   
6 Comments
rob
December 12, 2024

".......Without a requirement to take part, but not all, of future retirement benefits as an income stream, Australia is likely to retain its current B+ grade......"

My personal view David, is that the very flexibility built into our Superannuation system, makes it A+, as it enables retirees to take a "little more or a little less" and even, God forbid, to leave some to their ungrateful children!!

Michael
December 12, 2024

Unisex lifetime annuities - an interesting thought, which would be consistent with the fact that most super funds have unisex group life insurance premium rates. However lifetime annuity rates in Australia are already not that attractive, and converting them to unisex would make them even less attractive for males, who may take their money to other products. The annuity market would not be as profitable, resulting in even more pressure on lifetime annuity rates. I am not saying unisex rates are wrong, in fact I'm all in favour of doing away with gender based everything, it's just that there would be adverse consequences for males who may move away from these products, right at a time when we are trying to raise their profile as part of a retirement portfolio.

Cam
December 15, 2024

Correct .
There’s also longevity inequity for people in regional and remote locations, and of course First Nations people.

VIC Victor
December 15, 2024

I'm always so curious as to why those inside the industry continues to push lifetime annuities. DB are being replaced often because of the unfunded liability it creates to the provider.

Certainty comes at a great cost to both the provider and recipient. The way life time annuities are priced locks in lower total returns (est 25%) over a 20 year retirement. They hide initial pricing when it comes to inflation indexing, promote new early return of capital (on death) and ultimately rely on concessional Asset Test treatment to create any income yield. Any decent adviser would understand that longevity and sequence risk can be managed much more cost effectively than via lifetime annuities.

Trustee Boards of large super funds need to do better before they get suckered into this proposition by actuarial driven spreadsheets. Unfortunately most don't have the basic understanding so have fallen for the marketing hype so prominent in the industry.

Wildcat
December 15, 2024

There are always massive problems with averages. Not stated in this article but often cited is the number of super accounts cashed at retirement. What this number fails to critically show is firstly did the superannuant have debt when they retired and was it a small account? If you instead looked at. $$ cashed as a % of funds at aged 65 you would see the number incredibly lower.

The idea of locking up super in retirement would cause it to be massively less popular and a retrograde step.

Forget what international ‘experts’ decide. Our system is just fine thank you very much and one of the best in the world.

Victor
December 15, 2024

Yes absolutely. Life time annuities have a massive cost embedded into their pricing. Over a 20 year retirement period you can estimate you'll earn 25% less on your original capital versus a more balanced investment approach. It's unclear to me why you can't managed longevity risk or sequence risk better with the higher investment returns given the historic next to 0% of negative returns over the same period. Other than Age Pension concessions I cant see how they "max income" as a standalone proposition. They basically just give you your own money back over the 20 years.

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

The most complex super system in the world

Retaining some features of Defined Benefit funds

Meg on SMSFs: Last word on Div 296 for a while

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

It’s time for LICs to die

A high-profile dividend cut and a prominent fund manager’s apology have reignited a long-running debate. If investors can access similar exposures more cheaply and efficiently elsewhere, what exactly is keeping LICs alive?

The retirement scorecard: how many of these questions can you answer?

From the maths of retirement, estimating spending and picking the right asset allocation to survive a poor decade, here are the questions every retiree – current or future – should be able to answer for themselves.

Testamentary trusts: Treasury has picked the wrong reading

A decades-old estate planning tool has survived one tax crackdown only to be caught by another. The surprise isn't who the reform is targeting, but who could end up paying the price for drafting choices made years ago.

How the typical Australian Family could save $844,350 in taxes

The value of a testamentary trust is not determined by wealth alone. Depending on circumstances, it can reduce the tax burden on inherited income, create efficiencies and help build intergenerational wealth.

The housing slide could become a crash

House prices are sliding across Australia, yet the most dangerous ingredient for a housing crash is still missing. If job losses surge amid growing economic risks, today's correction could become a historic property downturn.

Will investors be better or worse off under new housing tax changes?

Housing tax reforms have sparked warnings of market turmoil and promises of greater fairness. But after modelling nearly two decades of property data, the results suggest winners and losers may not be who many investors expect.

Latest Updates

SMSF strategies

Division 296: the initial moves to make before the windows close

What if the best superannuation strategy isn't about earning more, but acting before your options disappear? Several overlooked planning windows are narrowing, with consequences that can last for decades.

Planning

Avoid unnecessary CGT with this estate planning clause

A simple estate plan can create a ticking time bomb. One overlooked clause can pit spouses against children, delay inheritances, and potentially leave a family facing an unexpected tax bill worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Exchange traded products

The hidden trade-off in fixed income ETFs

Some investment trade-offs are immediately visible. Others are embedded in the way a portfolio is constructed. Understanding the difference may explain why similar-looking investments can produce surprisingly different results.

Retirement

The mortgage free retirement is fading

What happens when a generation reaches retirement carrying obligations previous generations largely avoided? New research suggests we may need to rethink both how much we need in retirement and what life could look like.

Retirement

The key question to inspire a confident and purposeful retirement

Most people spend decades planning for retirement. Far fewer plan for what happens when they get there. The difference may explain why so many find the transition harder and less fulfilling than expected, despite careful preparation.

Latest from Morningstar

Making the case for a 'good enough' portfolio

Some investors spend years chasing the perfect strategy. Others choose a path that’s simply good enough and move on. Which approach is more likely to deliver both better outcomes and a happier financial life over the long run?

Investment strategies

Is the US market as expensive as CAPE says?

Many investing ideas survive for decades. But that does not make them right. A famous valuation measure implies that US shares are dangerously expensive, but the evidence may point to a very different conclusion.

Sponsors

Alliances

  • ASA-Logo-RGB-ActiveGreen-web.png

© 2026 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
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. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. 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.