Retirement projection calculators need to be relationship inclusive

Retirement income calculators need to take into account relationship diversity to be accurate for all couples, Rice Warner believes.

In an analysis, the actuary firm found that same sex couples were more affluent with a projected income in retirement for male/male couples at $69,000 and female/female couples at $63,000, compared to $58,000 for female/male couples.

Rice Warner said the main reason for this was the cost of raising children which impacted a higher percentage of heterosexual couples than same sex couples.

The firm noted that because there was only a small sample of same sex couples from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the results could not necessarily be generalised to represent all same-sex couples.

VIEW ALL

View all

“The gender difference in life expectancy is reason alone to ensure that calculators are designed to allow for the diversity in relationships as it has considerable impact on estimates of retirement income when optimising to life expectancy,” the analysis said.

“Although the data shows same sex couples tend to be more affluent, higher joint life expectancy for same-sex female couples and differences in means testing are also crucial factors.

“Superannuation funds need to consider the diversity of their members by providing tools that are inclusive of the entirety of their membership rather than simply catering to the majority.”

Rice Warner also found that while 66 per cent Australians were married at the time they retired, only 40 per cent of super fund retirement calculators with projections allowed for couples. Of these tools, 73 per cent allowed the user to project for same sex couples.

“We also reviewed the retirement calculator for the ASIC [Australian Securities and Investments Commission] MoneySmart site.  This does allow for a couple but, as it does not collect the gender for either person, it is not accurate,” it said.

“Interestingly, some of the funds that do provide inclusive tools come from the faith-based sector which might prefer to stick to the traditional definition of marriage, whereas some of the funds that did not allow for same sex couples are amongst the largest industry funds with the broadest membership.”

Source: Rice Warner