Ordinary consumers should find it easier to compare the benefits delivered by industry superannuation funds and retail master trusts if the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) actually delivers on key proposals outlined in a discussion paper on enhanced superannuation statistics collections.
The discussion paper, released for industry comment this week, also suggests collection of data capable of defusing the long-running argument between retail master trusts and industry funds over fee structures and the value of financial advice.
At the same time, APRA has signalled it is considering reducing the time for submission of quarterly returns from the present 25 working days after the end of the reporting quarter to 20 business days, in common with other APRA-regulated industries.
The regulator’s discussion paper has come in the wake of industry negativity relating to the production of superannuation league tables by APRA.
The discussion paper acknowledges that factors in addition to risk-adjusted rates of return may need to be taken into account when assessing the effectiveness of superannuation funds in meeting member needs.
It said these factors included whether explicit or implicit fees and charges in the fund entitled a member to financial advice and whether membership of the fund provided members with other indirect benefits.
The regulator has proposed that fees be reported on a gross basis, with a look-through methodology.
As well, it said that in order to provide as high as possible a level of comparability between funds based on member experience, it proposed collecting data on the benefit payable at the end of the year in respect of a small number of representative members.
Commenting on the release of the discussion paper, APRA deputy chairman Ross Jones said the proposed enhancements to the statistics collection and reporting would complement APRA’s fund-level publication to be released later this year.
