Indeed, property investments can present even greater problems if the investments themselves are gated property investments, like open-ended property funds.
At face value, such investments could be viewed in a positive light, as they allow smaller investors (e.g. those with a maximum of £10,000 to invest) the opportunity to pool their capital to invest in assets of considerable value.
Indeed, for women keen to bridge the pension pay gap, this opportunity could understandably be viewed as an attractive pension prospect.
However, the higher the value of these assets, the higher the risk of illiquidity, as fund managers have the power to temporarily suspend the ability of investors to withdraw their cash.
While this action is arguably a method of protecting investors from the possibility of their assets declining in value, for those who are dependent on accessing their investments to fund their retirement, this can cause serious issues.
Evidently, this situation is not ideal. However, given the state of the ever-increasing pension pay gap, many women may feel like they have no other choice but to pursue this investment route.
The question, therefore, is what can be done to prevent women from being trapped in illiquid retirement investments?
The role of advisers
Given the risks that present themselves by solely relying on property to fund retirement, it is highly unlikely that an adviser would make this recommendation.
However, it is important that they understand some women will feel that they have little choice but to depend on this strategy.
As I highlighted earlier, the pension gender pay gap is wider than ever, meaning that while some women find themselves asset rich, they simply cannot access sufficient funds to sustain a comfortable retirement.
As such, advisers should consider how clients can diversify their assets and make their money work harder, while delivering the level of flexibility required to allow them to adjust their retirement strategy in accordance with market volatility.
Particularly in the current economic climate, I imagine flexible access drawdowns would have a greater appeal, as they allow retirees to withdraw funds from their pension as-and-when they need to.
However, before this is possible, advisers must ensure that their clients do not have any lost pension pots, which could serve them in retirement.
For example, if a woman worked briefly for a company after 2012, they will be entitled to a workplace pension.
As such, a valid recommendation would be to ensure that clients track down any lost pension (or pensions) and consolidate them into one pension scheme; either a self-invested personal pension, or a personal pension, which appropriately matches their risk appetite.
