Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 180

Meeting the retirement outcome challenge

For a while now, Jeremy Cooper (Chair of the Super System Review and now at Challenger) has been trying to remain both positive and patient with the super industry as it faces up to the retirement outcome challenge and securing retirement income streams for members. Jeremy has lamented about the ‘CIO Problem’ and suggests that super funds should think about appointing a ‘CRIO’ (Chief Retirement Income Officer). These views were formalised in a recent thought piece produced by Challenger and KPMG (linked here).

Harry Mitchell is the recently appointed CEO at superannuation fund, Mine Wealth + Wellbeing, while David Bell is the Chief Investment Officer (CIO).

GH: Harry, do you have a ‘CIO Problem’ at your fund?

HM: Is there something you know about David that I don’t know, Graham?

GH: Well I've worked with David on and off for well over a decade. I can tell you a few stories …

HM: The ‘CIO Problem’ is based on the premise that CIOs have historically, due to their analytical skillset, been heavily involved in ‘version 1’ retirement solutions. I call these ‘version 1’ solutions because they have generally been investment-based solutions. This can only get you so far. Jeremy is referring to the need for what we call ‘version 2’ and ‘version 3’ solutions. ‘Version 2’ is product based but accounts for investment and mortality risks. ‘Version 3’ is holistic. It would have a greater degree of personalisation hence brings in all capabilities of a super fund – from digital and analytics to communications and advice, to governance and administration capabilities that act as enablers.

GH: So what is the role of your CIO then?

HM: In our case David has two responsibilities. First he leads our investment activities. Managing risk to achieve investment outcomes will always be a crucial function of any leading super fund. A small amount of extra annual return delivered over time can have a significant impact on the retirement outcomes of our members.

However, David is also responsible for our retirement outcomes modelling unit. We established this area nearly two years ago. You know that David went back to uni six years ago to gain the research skills to meet the retirement outcome challenge. I think he initially thought that he would be building all the complex models himself, however he has matured (a little!) and realises that his role is to oversee this function. He has hired some great academic talent in this area. We have an agreed IT modelling platform (MATLAB) and have fully built out our modelling and testing environment.

GH: This is all starting to sound complex.

DB: It is. The complexity of the retirement outcome challenge cannot be denied. At a minimum you need the following: a stochastic framework that accounts for variability in investment and mortality outcomes and integration with Age Pension, and a clear set of objectives. From there you can begin to innovate. If a super fund can’t meet the complexity of the problem then they are likely to fail to meet the retirement outcome challenge.

GH: Surely the objectives are not that hard to land on?

DB: It is more complex than you think. The industry as a whole is only just now working out an objective (a recommendation of David Murray’s Financial System Inquiry). Think about income in retirement: people want higher income; they would prefer an income stream which is smooth and not bumpy; they would be upset if they outlived their retirement savings; and a bequest is worthwhile. We also know that people are generally risk averse – the pain of a lower outcome is larger than joy of an equivalent higher outcome.

Some of these features pull against each other: income level versus bumpiness, longevity risk versus bequest and so on. We have spent the last year working through all these issues with a collection of industry experts and academics and have packaged this up into a mathematical function. We now have what we call a ‘better scoreboard’ for assessing retirement outcome solutions and services.

GH: This sounds good but where does it place you in the super fund pack?

DB: Actually we will be sharing all of this work with everyone – industry, academia, regulators and policymakers. There is a bigger issue at play - nationwide retirement outcomes - and we want to contribute. We will make sure you get a media pass Graham when we release all this work.

GH: Won’t most people find this complex modelling a bit confronting? How do people know it is not just gobbledy-gook with some pretty pictures?

HM: I trust Dave and his team. They do a lot to test their models, including the use of external testers, and are active collaborators with the academic world which also acts as a control. Their commitment to education of our Board, our Investment Committee, our Executive team and our staff has really helped us along our journey.

GH: Well why don’t you call David your ‘CRIO’?

HM: We are uncomfortable with the concept of a dedicated CRIO. Delivering good retirement outcomes is at the heart of what we do as a firm. This makes me, in my role as CEO, effectively the CRIO that Jeremy refers to. It is my role to make sure that all my teams are collaborating, and that we engage with industry and regulators. It is my role to make sure we deliver the best possible retirement outcomes to our members. So my core responsibility is the delivery of retirement outcomes regardless of its complexities.

DB: I think you may see variations to this model. QSuper has a similar model to us. Some funds, particularly those with a defined benefit legacy such as UniSuper, have internal actuarial teams which could do the heavy lifting on the modelling side. Perhaps funds that don’t quite know where to start could create the role of a CRIO.

GH: I haven’t seen much evidence to suggest that other super funds are doing similar work. Do you think this will lead to further industry consolidation?

HM: Who knows what motives will drive the next wave of industry consolidation. We like the idea of merit-based mergers, and we hope that as the industry becomes aware of the work we are doing, they would like to collaborate and work with us in a variety of ways.


Harry Mitchell is Chief Executive Officer (the unofficial ‘CRIO’) at Mine Wealth + Wellbeing. David Bell is Chief Investment Officer at Mine Wealth + Wellbeing and is working towards a PhD at University of New South Wales. Both Mine Wealth + Wellbeing and Challenger/Accurium are sponsors of Cuffelinks.



Leave a Comment:



'Utility function' research wins Retirement Innovation Award

CIPRs are coming and that’s exciting

Has the FSI missed the elephant in the room?


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 reason to believe inflation will stay under control, and although we may see a slowing in the global economy, two companies will 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.

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.


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

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.