Add new comment

Ok....lets have all the conflicted director relationships in some well known industry super funds fully exposed also.
Lets have one of the former Directors of a very large industry super fund fully explain why they also held a directorship of a company that this fund held a 31% shareholding in on 30/06/2018 valued at $1,710,775 and where this company received fees from this fund for investment consulting services for the 2017/18 financial year of $3,721,731.
A director of a large industry super fund holding shares in a related company that receives payments from that industry super fund for services provided.
All fully disclosed on financial statements as relevant interests and related party investments and transactions.
But does anyone at all think this is ok ?
On 10th May, 2017 Money Management published an article outlining the issues ASIC had with direct commercial links
between Industry Fund Services (IFS) and a large number of industry super funds.
This article stated that there were 27 industry super funds which were shareholders in IFS.
Does the AIST think this is ok ?
Isn't this about blatant conflicts of interest despite being fully disclosed?
Lets have the AIST make a public comment on " relationships" between directors of industry super funds and other commercial entities they deal with, pay monies to or receive monies from and/or retain shareholdings in.
There has been immense volumes of monies not only paid to the trade union movement over many years, but also to related and associated entities providing service some with connections to directors of industry super funds.
If Josh Frydenberg wants to play properly, he needs to grow the balls to have a long, protracted and intense investigation into what really goes on in this space.
Lets see if he has the courage to open this can up and do a thorough and complete job.