Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 245

Women’s super needs protection of reversionary benefits

International Women’s Day and the focus on equality in superannuation outcomes continues to gain momentum. Congratulations to all involved, notably Women in Super. The progress emphasises this is no time to take a step back on women’s rights to retirement savings.

According to the Women in Super website, women in Australia retire with 47% less superannuation than men. Reasons explaining such a large gap include:

  • A gender pay gap of about 19%.
  • Women’s fragmented patterns of paid work associated with having children.
  • Greater likelihood of women working in part-time and casual positions, and the associated lower level of pay.
  • Women undertake the majority of unpaid housework, caring and parenting.

To date, the focus has been on developing policies to reduce the large gender-based super gap. If successful in achieving policy change, it will then take decades for these changes to season and realise their full, intended impact.

In the meantime, it is important for the retirement outcome of women that any new regulatory rules are not further detrimental to the retirement outcomes of women. Unfortunately, we face such a situation right now.

Reversion of pension benefits might be lost

At present, Treasury’s first cut of the CIPR (Comprehensive Income Product for Retirement, read more here) guidelines details highly-prescriptive product rules which emphasise income and place zero value on retirement features such as bequests including reversionary benefits. A reversionary benefit is where a pension ‘reverts’ to an eligible spouse or de facto partner when a member dies after retirement. Products with reversionary benefits are not precluded from CIPR, but these features cost money and hence reduce incomes. Our analysis suggests it is nearly impossible to meet the CIPR minimum requirements with a product which provides a reversionary benefit.

Currently, most pension assets sit in account-based pensions. When most people switch out of super, they roll into an account-based pension. As long as a beneficiary is nominated, a reversionary benefit feature will exist.

We know that about 65% of Australians retire with a partner. Currently, whether we like it or not, the benefits of superannuation largely flow to women through their male partners. This is at risk through the current framing of CIPR if they do not relax the stance on reversionary benefits. This is a massive issue for future retirement savings of women.

Establishing retirement preferences

The industry may be heading down the path of addressing the post-retirement challenge via prescriptive solutions, such as new products. We believe the better approach is to first establish preferences for retirement, and then use these to assess the best of a range of possible solutions.

Treasury has ventured down the prescriptive route with the first cut of CIPR. We undertook a significant amount of reverse engineering to discover the preferences that are implied by the CIPR design rules. We feel many superannuation trustees will be uncomfortable assuming these implied preferences on behalf of their members (for instance, the zero-value placed on reversionary benefits). This clearly creates a difficult situation of conflict for trustees of super funds between acting on behalf of their members’ best interest while being required to follow law.

What can be done?

The Government has announced its desire for a covenant requiring superannuation fund trustees to design appropriate retirement income solutions to their members. Minister Kelly O’Dwyer has appointed an Advisory Group to assist with this and review the design characteristics of CIPR (read more here).

The potential loss of reversionary benefits in retirement and the impact on women in retirement is too important to dismiss. Treasury and the Advisory Group members must be made aware of this.

 

Estelle Liu is a Quantitative Analyst in the Retirement Outcome team at Mine Super. David Bell is Chief Investment Officer at Mine Super, and a PhD candidate at UNSW. The views expressed in this article are their own and may differ from those at Mine Super.

 

  •   21 March 2018
  • 7
  •      
  •   
7 Comments
Women in Super
March 22, 2018

It is essential that we change the system to 'Make Super Fair' for women and low income earners! We need to end the 'Super Gap' that currently sees an estimated 40% of women retire in poverty.

Cate Wood
March 22, 2018

Thanks for acknowledging the work of Women in Super to improve women's retirement outcomes - a key plank of our Make Super Fair campaign is the demand that there be gender analysis of all policy proposals. www.makesuperfair.com

Rob Little
March 22, 2018

Another way by which retirement outcomes could be improved for women who are self funded retirees and who, together with their husbands/partners, were already in the pension phase before the 2016 Budget changes to super were introduced, would be to allow equalisation of Transfer Balance Caps between partners (thereby also overcoming the negative impacts of the Work Test and disallowed carry forward provisions on the ability of these women to make non concessional contributions).
Whilst most in this situation will by now have restructured their superannuation affairs to comply with the 2016 changes, perhaps equalisation of couples' TBCs could still proceed through a transfer of funds from one member's accumulation account to the other's pension account?

dc
March 23, 2018

There is already a mechanism to equalise super balances between spouses, namely - Spousal Contribution Splitting - which allows annual super contributions to be transferred to a spouse (i.e. with a lower balance) which, overtime, can be used to equalise the super balances between spouses.

However, this requires a bit of planning, and needs to be done progressively during the income earning and super contribution years.

This policy has been in place for years.

FB
March 23, 2018

As you have articles this week on both gender equity in super and the downsizing contribution - I wonder if anyone has looked at the downsizing contribution from a gender equity in super perspective? Given the high proportion of heterosexual couples comprising an older male and and younger female, to the extent that a home is sold prior to the wife reaching age 65 it seems to me that this may further tilt contributions towards male super balances - unless I'm missing something - which is always a distinct possibility!

Also want to say I loved your personal sporting commentary in this week's Cuffelinks. I started my day with a very good laugh and a smile on my face - so thank-you for that!

Lisa
March 26, 2018

Could you provide an example or a link to your work to support this comment about costing more.
"Products with reversionary benefits are not precluded from CIPR, but these features cost money and hence reduce incomes. Our analysis suggests it is nearly impossible to meet the CIPR minimum requirements with a product which provides a reversionary benefit."

Estelle
March 26, 2018

Hi Lisa,

Thanks for your question – it is a good one. Without going into actual quotes or formal modelling, consider the case of an annuity policy, and consider two forms of the policy:

(A) If the policy has a reversionary component (i.e. upon passing away a payment is made to a surviving partner (if alive)) then this probability of having to make an additional payment will be incorporated into the price of the policy, calculated by the insurance company.

(B) If the policy has no reversionary benefit then upon passing away the policy comes to an end.

There are more potential cash payments incorporated into Policy A and so, all else equal, Policy A will be more expensive (or offer a lower cash return per amount invested) than Policy B.

As a result, the same amount of retirement savings will buy you a lower lifetime income in Policy A than B. The initial version of the CIPR certification test has quite a high minimum income requirement to satisfy. If we want to allow for reversionary benefit and purchase Policy A, the level of income it provides is not likely to satisfy the minimum requirement under the initial version of the CIPR certification test.

Cheers,
Estelle

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

Addressing the gender super gap

The state of women's wealth in Australia

How SMSFs are investing their money

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

The growing debt burden of retiring Australians

More Australians are retiring with larger mortgages and less super. This paper explores how unlocking housing wealth can help ease the nation’s growing retirement cashflow crunch.

Four best-ever charts for every adviser and investor

In any year since 1875, if you'd invested in the ASX, turned away and come back eight years later, your average return would be 120% with no negative periods. It's just one of the must-have stats that all investors should know.

LICs vs ETFs – which perform best?

With investor sentiment shifting and ETFs surging ahead, we pit Australia’s biggest LICs against their ETF rivals to see which delivers better returns over the short and long term. The results are revealing.

Family trusts: Are they still worth it?

Family trusts remain a core structure for wealth management, but rising ATO scrutiny and complex compliance raise questions about their ongoing value. Are the benefits still worth the administrative burden?

13 ways to save money on your tax - legally

Thoughtful tax planning is a cornerstone of successful investing. This highlights 13 legal ways that you can reduce tax, preserve capital, and enhance long-term wealth across super, property, and shares.

Our experts on Jim Chalmers' super tax backdown

Labor has caved to pressure on key parts of the Division 296 tax, though also added some important nuances. Here are six experts’ views on the changes and what they mean for you.        

Latest Updates

Investment strategies

Warren Buffett's final lesson

I’ve long seen Buffett as a flawed genius: a great investor though a man with shortcomings. With his final letter to Berkshire shareholders, I reflect on how my views of Buffett have changed and the legacy he leaves.

Property

The housing market is heading into choppy waters

With rates on hold and housing demand strong, lenders are pushing boundaries. As risky products return, borrowers should be cautious and not let clever marketing cloud their judgment.

Investment strategies

Dumb money triumphant

One sign of today's speculative market froth is that retail investors are winning, and winning big. It bears remarkable similarities to 1929 and 1999, and this story may not have a happy ending either.

Retirement

Can the sequence of investment returns ruin retirement?

Retirement outcomes aren’t just about average returns. The sequence of returns, good or bad, can dramatically shape how long super lasts. Understanding sequencing risk is key to managing longevity risk.

Strategy

How AI is changing search and what it means for Google

The use of generative AI in search is on the rise and has profound implications for search engines like Google, as well as for companies that rely on clicks to make sales.

Survey: Getting to know you, and your thoughts on Firstlinks

We’d love to get to know more about our readers, hear your thoughts on Firstlinks and see how we can make it better for you. Please complete this short survey, and have your say.

Investment strategies

A framework for understanding the AI investment boom

Technological leaps - from air travel to computing - has enriched society but squeezed margins. As AI accelerates, investors must separate progress from profitability to avoid repeating past mistakes.

Economy

The mystery behind modern spending choices

Today’s consumers are walking contradictions - craving simplicity in an age of abundance, privacy in a public world. These tensions tell a bigger story about what people truly value and why.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 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.