The Two Numbers Every Member Needs 

Personalising income projections and longevity horizons: what the evidence says, and what funds can do now 

Our founder, David Orford, put it plainly in a recent post: it should be mandatory for superannuation funds to show projections of a member’s estimated retirement income, not a lump sum, on annual statements and every time a member logs into the fund’s website. 

He went further: show those projections at ages 65, 70 and 75. And show the additional income a member would receive from contributing an extra, say, $100 per month. Not once, but every time they engage with their fund. 

The research supports him. And the regulatory framework is moving in exactly this direction. The question for funds is not whether to do this but how to do it well and make it as useful as possible for members. 

What happens when members see income instead of balance 

Most Australians experience their superannuation as a dollar balance. A number that rises and falls with markets and contributions. That number tells members very little about what their retirement will actually look like. The question that matters is not how much they have saved. It is how much income they will have and whether it will last. 

When members see only a balance, they apply the wrong mental frame to it. Behavioural research is consistent on this: wealth held as a lump sum feels like something to protect rather than draw down. That instinct persists well into retirement and drives the underspending and financial anxiety that the Retirement Income Covenant was specifically designed to address. 

The question that matters is not how much members have saved. It is how much income they will have and whether it will last. 

In 2013, Cbus ran a trial with approximately 20,000 members, sending a Retirement Income Estimate alongside the member’s balance for the first time. Researchers from the University of Sydney and UNSW subsequently analysed the results and concluded that including these estimates made a real difference on a range of metrics. Overall, engagement with Cbus rose sharply: 35% of the group who received the estimate interacted with the fund in the months following, compared with 24% of those who did not, a 46% difference. Among those who did interact, the number of interactions was 68% higher. 

One piece of additional information, a projected retirement income figure, produced those results. Members could suddenly see what their savings pattern meant in retirement terms. That shift in understanding changed their behaviour. 

Why personalisation matters 

The research also points to something important about how income projections work best. A generic figure based on standard assumptions is considerably less useful than one that reflects a member’s actual situation. Showing a member what their income would be if they retired at 65 versus 67 versus 70 is not just informative; it changes the retirement decision itself. Showing the income effect of an extra $100 per month in contributions turns an abstract savings conversation into a concrete income conversation. 

This is the logic behind David’s call for multi-age projections. It is also consistent with what regulators are now asking for. ASIC’s Regulatory Guide 276 provides a safe harbour framework that allows funds to include projected retirement income,  both as a lump sum and as an income stream, in member communications without triggering personal advice obligations, provided standard assumptions and disclosures are met. Treasury’s Best Practice Principles, released in February 2026, explicitly call on funds to provide income forecasts and projections as part of their retirement income strategy. APRA and ASIC have both flagged member engagement with these tools as a priority area. 

The framework exists. The evidence is clear. What varies is the willingness to implement. 

The second number: how long does the income need to last? 

Income projections answer only half the question. An estimated income of $42,000 per year means something very different depending on whether a member is planning to age 85, 92, or 100. Without a realistic sense of how long they might live, members cannot evaluate whether their projected income is adequate. 

Australians consistently underestimate their longevity. Research shows that survey respondents expect a 65-year-old male to live to around 82, and a 65-year-old female to around 85. The Australian Life Tables, updated to reflect 25 years of mortality improvement, tell a different story. A 65-year-old male today has a 50% chance of reaching 89 and a 25% chance of reaching 94. For a 65-year-old couple, there is a 25% chance that at least one partner will still be alive at 97. 

The ASIC RG 276 default planning age of 92 offers a healthy couple retiring at 65 only a 35% confidence level that their funds will last. Most members, once they understand what that means, would want a higher threshold. The gap between what members assume and what the data shows is where retirement plans fail. 

For a 65-year-old couple, there is a 25% chance that at least one partner will still be alive at 97. Most retirement plans don’t reflect that. 

Professor Olivia Mitchell and colleagues have shown that good retirement financial decision-making depends on people having a realistic understanding of their life expectancy and longevity risk. When members understand the range of possible lifespans, not just an average, they make different decisions about drawdown rates, lifetime income products and when to retire. 

This is where personalised longevity tools become valuable. The Optimum Pensions Lifespan Calculator helps members estimate their longevity horizon based on individual health and lifestyle factors, drawing on Australian Life Tables and reinsurer health data. It presents results as a range of probabilities rather than a single number, and it models couple survival, the planning consideration that extends the horizon significantly for most retiring Australians. Embedding it within a fund’s member portal promotes the longevity conversation and gives members the context they need to interpret an income projection meaningfully. 

Two numbers, one complete picture 

Income projections and longevity awareness are often treated as separate initiatives. They work better together. An income figure without a planning horizon is incomplete. A longevity assessment without an income figure to evaluate it against is abstract. Together, they answer the question retirement planning is actually trying to answer: will my money last my lifetime, and what are my options if it might not? 

A member who understands both their projected income and the realistic range of how long they might live is in a fundamentally different position when it comes to evaluating income products, including lifetime income options. That understanding does not guarantee good decisions, but it creates the conditions for them. Funds that provide both are offering something qualitatively different from funds that show only a balance. 

What funds can do now 

David framed his proposition as a case for legislative mandate. That debate is worth having. But funds do not need to wait for it. The ASIC safe harbour, the Best Practice Principles, and the Retirement Income Covenant together provide both the legal cover and the regulatory expectation for funds to move forward now. 

The Cbus trial was conducted over a decade ago. The evidence on what income projections do to member engagement and savings behaviour has been available for years. The 2.5 million Australians expected to retire over the next decade are engaging with their funds right now — and most of them are still seeing only a balance. 

Showing projected retirement income at multiple ages, with the impact of additional contributions included, on statements and member portals is a practical and achievable step. Pairing that with personalised longevity context so members understand what planning horizon they are actually working with, turns an information exercise into a genuine planning tool. And connecting both to relevant income products and guidance closes the loop between awareness and action. 

Funds that provide both income projections and personalised longevity context are offering something qualitatively different,  and their members will plan differently because of it. 

 ##