Super fund members will be better able to understand the importance of voluntary contributions and the impact of asset allocation on their savings if statements include a range of retirement benefit estimates.

The advantages of including projected retirement benefits on a member's annual statement have found widespread support in the industry, but Russell Investments pension expert Don Ezra said if the government issued standardised guidelines on calculating the range of possible outcomes, the system would have a much better chance of survival.

"Part of the communication issues arises from the fact that all of us involved in setting up the system and operating it were investment professionals," Ezra said.

"What it doesn't tell is what you are trying to do with this money and if you are on track to getting it.

"If it told you that between the age pension and the amount of income you are likely to have, you are going to have 80 per cent of your current pay, you might feel pretty good about it.

"If it told you you might have 40 per cent of your current pay, you might say: 'Oops, where can I put some more in?'

"But if you have no idea whether it is going to be 40 per cent, 80 per cent or 100 per cent, then you have no idea how to interpret that you made 7 per cent [return] last year."

Ezra argued for a system of best estimates that would calculate the best and worst outcomes for a member, based on their age, savings and investment strategy.

But he said this system required standardisation by the government to be successful.

"The more standardisation there is, the more chance that it is going to survive, particularly if the government says: 'This is the way you should make predictions for the future,'" he said.

"Funds can hide behind that and say 'we are doing the best we can'."

ASIC chairman Greg Medcraft proposed at the recent Conference of Major Superannuation Funds in Brisbane that member statements should also include the average asset allocation of the OECD countries to initiate an asset allocation discussion with members.

But Ezra said he did not think that was the right way to approach member education.

"My personal view, not Russell's, is that I don't want to know that the average fund in Sweden has 70 per cent in equities, and in Portugal it is 20 per cent. I really don't care," he said.

"What does 70 per cent equities mean to you in terms of the downside? I have been 30 years in the business and I don't know what it means. I don't know if it is tolerable or not.

"To have a better benchmark is to provide two numbers: give me your best estimate of what this is going to give me after 65 and with this amount of risk exposure how well might it go?

"If I choose to go 60/40 [equities/bonds] instead of 70/30, then I expect the best estimate to be lower than at 70/30, because I'm not going to make as much money if I don't take the risk.

"But the downside should be better. With 60/40, if things go wrong I shouldn't go as far down as with 70/30.

"Give me that kind of range and now suddenly I'm starting to develop a gut feeling that when I reach age 65 ... can I tolerate the downside?"

Asked whether the calculators that a number of funds provided to members would do the job, Ezra was cautious in his response.

"I think it is a terrific step, but you never know if it is enough. You can only try certain things," he said.