This kind of analysis is nonsense and the headline that goes with it is ridiculous! The gender discrepancy in super holding is not a “cost” to anybody – except perhaps the spruikers and gougers who want to increase their funds under management so they can extract even more by their fees and commissions.

The gender gap concept itself is deeply flawed. No distinction is being made between the name on the account and the potential beneficiaries. There are many more women who have vested interest in super accounts held by men than the reverse, and the amounts involved are even more divergent than the numbers. So what if the money is in his name if she is an equal beneficiary both legally and in practice? Yes, there are large gender wage differences on average, and yes it is hard to explain them all by the usual labour market factors. And yes, the super accounts of women tend to reflect their average lower lifetime workforce participation and wage rates. But it is pointless to compare the average account size by gender of the account holder.

Where there may be a gender problem with super is the specific case of a family law split in which she gets half (or maybe more) of the tangible assets to that point, but he gets to keep his human capital which enables him to have higher wages and savings from then onward. After the split, his ability to contribute to super until retirement may be much better than hers. That seems a public policy issue worth considering, although it would be devilish problem to solve.