Retirement savings plans often make for interesting dinner party conversations.

Recovering markets have, thankfully, improved the tenor of discussions around superannuation accounts as both portfolio balances and confidence have been repaired.

But it is sometimes surprising to hear how individuals are thinking about their retirement savings – or rather the lack of it.

Consider the case of a single, professional woman successfully running her own consulting business which means she often works overseas for extended periods.

She cheerfully explained that her super account balance was “pitifully” low. Her success in the business world has not – as yet anyway – translated into a successful approach to retirement savings. Sadly she is typical of an endemic problem within our superannuation system – women have dramatically lower account balances than men.

Research by ASFA in 2007 put the median super balance at $31,250 for men and only $18,500 for women. There is nothing to suggest that that imbalance has shifted significantly in the past three years.

There are a variety of reasons to explain it – interrupted working lives and lower average salaries being two of the main ones.

But there is also the issue of engagement and understanding of superannuation. Our case study had not entirely ignored her need to finance her lifestyle after work. She had bought an investment property – to her way of thinking that was her super back up plan.

Residential property has performed strongly in recent years and there are tax advantages courtesy of the negative gearing deductions – although it will be interesting to see if Ken Henry’s review of our tax system recommends any changes to that.

But the rental income from one property is probably not going to be enough to fund a comfortable retirement lifestyle. Property proponents may say that is an argument for a portfolio of houses but the challenge with that is paying down the debt at the time of retirement.

It also raises other issues – a critical one being that the new caps on contributions make it difficult, if not impossible, to get large amounts of money into super to take advantages of its tax concessional status in the run up to retirement. So the idea of selling an investment property and then contributing the proceeds into super just prior to retirement is problematic.

A more fundamental problem with property assets when drawing down retirement income is the illiquid and lumpy nature of property. Rental income is great but if that is insufficient and you want to draw down a lump sum for a new car for example you cannot just sell off a bathroom or bedroom to raise the money.

That is where the liquidity of a super fund provides a much more flexible retirement income solution.

The key issue here is not about super versus direct property as the best way to save for retirement. Increasingly – given the contribution caps - it is about having money both inside and outside super. All of which argues the case for a holistic financial plan that sets the strategy to achieve a comfortable retirement.

When it comes to women and their low super balances that is a public policy issue in need of more debate. The Super System Review that is being chaired by Jeremy Cooper is due to hand down its findings in June this year and that may well provide the catalyst and framework to begin to correct the imbalance.