Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 188

Superannuation needs greater outcomes focus

As the super industry shifts from a focus on accumulation to the full savings lifecycle, with an emphasis on retirement income, the measures the industry needs to gauge progress must change too.

The newly minted government-defined objective of super points the way. The objective of super is, “to provide income in retirement to substitute or supplement the age pension.”

This objective aligns with the views in an excellent paper, Governance: The Sine Qua Non of Retirement Security, by Michael Drew and Adam Walk, which argues that the fiduciary focus of defined contribution retirement plans has to be on outcomes of the process, not just on inputs. They argue the industry has been overly focused on fund returns as the key measure and not enough on the retirement incomes likely to be earned by members. Following Nobel Prize winner Robert Merton, they claim "retirement income is the true measure".

Put it in terms we each can relate to as participants in the super industry: do we care about what time-weighted rate of return the fund earns (or peer-relative performance) or instead the stream of retirement income we can draw down during retirement?

Now, most individuals don’t currently have access to forecasts of what their super savings will likely amount to as income streams during their retirement. And neither do trustees of most superannuation funds have good analysis of the likely retirement outcomes of their members.

What are outcomes-based objectives?

That’s got to change, even with the government’s minimalist definition of super’s objective. Individuals and funds need to get a handle on the likely income streams in retirement. For those with greater ambitions, like having a ‘satisfactory’ or ‘comfortable’ income in retirement, the need to switch to outcomes-based objectives is even more obvious.

What are the right measures for a fund that seeks to help its members get strong incomes in retirement? In my view, funds should be forecasting expected retirement incomes for all members, in effect establishing a baseline set of expectations for its membership. Funds should then set a course which seeks to improve on that baseline and then measure progress.

Expected retirement incomes could be measured absolutely or against relative indicators such as standard of living measures, like the ASFA Standards, or against replacement ratios (the percentage of pre-retirement income earned during retirement). What percentage of our members are expected to meet the ASFA ‘modest’ or ‘comfortable’ income during retirement? Or what is the distribution of retirement income forecasts versus current income levels? (for example, how many of our members will make a replacement ratio of 70% of pre-retirement income?) What percentage of our members will be on the full and part age pension?

Of course, retirement income forecasts are not certain predictions. We live in a stochastic world of unknown outcomes. So it’s important that we think in terms of a range of outcomes and the risk to our members of not achieving adequate retirement income levels. We need to think in retirement income security terms, not only in portfolio risk terms, then members can trade off appropriate portfolio risk and retirement risk decisions.

Some trustees may think it’s too difficult or uncertain to forecast the future for each member, but well-established techniques are available.

Outcomes-based measures change management

Instead of focusing on what the fund does – manage portfolios, administer accounts – executives will drive greater focus on what the member does which impacts their retirement outcomes. The trustee will think more about encouraging beneficial member behaviour to drive better outcomes.

For example, is it most important to offer a single strong MySuper default or better to encourage members to be in an investment option that suits their own needs to produce a target retirement income? Technology exists to give members personalised defaults.

Also, is it better to offer members more expensive actively-managed options or to invest more in passive funds and use the fee savings for delivering individualised guidance to the members on establishing and achieving their retirement income goals? Is there more pay-off or ‘alpha’ in good advice than in active equity management?

And will a focus on retirement outcomes drive a frank conversation about what members need to save to get a satisfactory retirement income? The way the industry tiptoes around the issue, it’s like we’re afraid to tell anyone that the guarantee charge’s 9.5% (6.65% to 8.06% after tax) contribution rate is just not enough.

Moving to outcomes-based measures of success will not only drive alignment with government objectives but ensure that we’re focused on what really matters to fund members.

 

Jeremy Duffield is Co-Founder of SuperEd. He was the Managing Director and Founder of Vanguard Investments Australia and he retired as Chairman in 2010.

RELATED ARTICLES

Deriving an effective retirement income

How safe is my super from rule changes?

Are lifetime income streams the answer or just the easy way out?

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Australian house prices close in on world record

Sydney is set to become the world’s most expensive city for housing over the next 12 months, a new report shows. Our other major cities aren’t far behind unless there are major changes to improve housing affordability.

The case for the $3 million super tax

The Government's proposed tax has copped a lot of flack though I think it's a reasonable approach to improve the long-term sustainability of superannuation and the retirement income system. Here’s why.

7 examples of how the new super tax will be calculated

You've no doubt heard about Division 296. These case studies show what people at various levels above the $3 million threshold might need to pay the ATO, with examples ranging from under $500 to more than $35,000.

The revolt against Baby Boomer wealth

The $3m super tax could be put down to the Government needing money and the wealthy being easy targets. It’s deeper than that though and this looks at the factors behind the policy and why more taxes on the wealthy are coming.

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

The super tax and the defined benefits scandal

Australia's superannuation inequities date back to poor decisions made by Parliament two decades ago. If super for the wealthy needs resetting, so too does the defined benefits schemes for our public servants.

Latest Updates

Planning

Will young Australians be better off than their parents?

For much of Australia’s history, each new generation has been better off than the last: better jobs and incomes as well as improved living standards. A new report assesses whether this time may be different.

Superannuation

The rubbery numbers behind super tax concessions

In selling the super tax, Labor has repeated Treasury claims of there being $50 billion in super tax concessions annually, mostly flowing to high-income earners. This figure is vastly overstated.

Investment strategies

A steady road to getting rich

The latest lists of Australia’s wealthiest individuals show that while overall wealth has continued to rise, gains by individuals haven't been uniform. Many might have been better off adopting a simpler investment strategy.

Economy

Would a corporate tax cut boost productivity in Australia?

As inflation eases, the Albanese government is switching its focus to lifting Australia’s sluggish productivity. Can corporate tax cuts reboot growth - or are we chasing a theory that doesn’t quite work here?

Are V-shaped market recoveries becoming more frequent?

April’s sharp rebound may feel familiar, but are V-shaped recoveries really more common in the post-COVID world? A look at market history suggests otherwise and hints that a common bias might be skewing perceptions.

Investment strategies

Asset allocation in a world of riskier developed markets

Old distinctions between developed and emerging market bonds no longer hold true. At a time where true diversification matters more than ever, this has big ramifications for the way that portfolios should be constructed.

Investment strategies

Top 5 investment reads

As the July school holiday break nears, here are some investment classics to put onto your reading list. The books offer lessons in investment strategy, financial disasters, and mergers and acquisitions.

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.