Risk aversion is costing women in retirement

Clearly it is not sufficient for women to rely on their spouse's super - the situation requires a broad review of a number of aspects across tax and superannuation which would work to give women equality in pay rates and in the super system and make allowances for broken service. Some women may be more conservative but this is usually related to child bearing and their lower pay rates.
Given that one half of graduates are now women we cannot assume that they do not understand risk and return rather the conservatism factor is more related to social factors which men are not necessarily bound by.

I am for a look at the entirety of superannuation for women which looks at all the contributing factors and creates a fair distribution of wealth.

I nearly always recommend that the working partner use super splitting to move 50% or more of their contributions to partner raising the children. This way the carer's super does not fall behind and this helps in some way to avoid a common problem with divorces where the carer looks to keep the home while the partner walks away with the liquidity.

Women in general may be less confident with equities but when they seek advice they are excellent at taking recommendations, implementing suitable portfolios and sticking to a plan, often exceeding savings targets. So maybe more education from earlier on would go some way to address this issue.

My observation from living in a retirement village is that most superannuation finishes up in the hands of women. Even up to that point, superannuation is an asset shared between husband and wife.

It isn't a question of women being married or not. The issue is whether women have children in a joint venture and take the major load in managing home and family. Hopefully adults partnering for procreation will be encouraged to develop clearer and more formal contracts between them which will include provision for retirement. The standard words of the marriage service may sound good but they are no longer adequate.

What about introducing "family concessional cap" where husband can contribute super on behalf of the wife and the contribution taxed at 15%!

The flaw with all gender-related analysis of superannuation is the false assumption that no-one shares their superannuation with their spouse. I think the false assumption persists because it makes the analysis easier and it also allows the gender victimhood narrative to flourish (which often seems to be the purpose of such exercises). According to every such analysis I have seen, my wife is destined for destitution because of her paltry superannuation balance. However, that's not the case because the reality is that all of our financial assets are shared. I may be a bit old-fashioned but surely we aren't the only family that still works that way.

The necessity to achieve equal superannuation balances is open to challenge. This research does not distinguish between married / partnered women and single women. The outcome for married / partnered women needs to be considered in the context of their household structure. Even if they separate they have some claim to their partner's super

Belinda

Well made points re generations in the workforce and need for equities. But return uplift can only go so far. The flaw in our superannuation system is that it does not begin with the end in mind. If it did, we would have compensation through the tax system for higher invested contribution for women because they live longer and on average only gain 25% of their working life at full time employment. Also spare a thought for first wave baby boomer women who retired after 2006 thinking they would have part age pension and now face having their retirement income cut from 2017 by up to 20%. Hard to make up form this with a shift to equities right now. If there was a genuine rethink of the end purpose of superannuation, we might give some attention to these issues rather than the flawed notion of "tax expenditures''.

Bruce