Industry funds-backed asset manager, IFM Investors has steadfastly declined to reveal to a Parliamentary Committee how much it pays its executives or the scale of its highest severance package to an IFM executive.
The answers were sought during hearings of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics review of the major banks and superannuation funds but the negative responses given by IFM chief executive, Brett Himbury, were carried through despite questions on notice.
IFM Investors (formerly Industry Funds Management) came to notice early last year when a sexual harassment claim was brought against a senior executive employed in the United Kingdom, Frederic Michel-Verdier. The claim, heard in the Central London Employment Tribunal, was settled in April last year with Michel-Verdier departing the company in September.
The chairman of the Parliamentary Committee, Victorian Liberal back-bencher, Tim Wilson asked Himbury “what’s the largest severance package that’s ever been paid to someone out of IFM?”
The company’s formal answer to the question on notice stated: “The information sought is commercially sensitive and could impact on IFM’s ability to retain and attract staff in a highly competitive global marketplace, and ultimately, risk harm to our investors and their beneficiaries. IFM Investors meets its legal obligations with respect to remuneration disclosures”.
Wilson also asked what was the average performance bonus likely to be paid to IFM Investors executives, and received the same answer from the investment manager.
Comments
Whilst fund managers definitely need to be more transparent with their staff pay, it's not exactly a great look for a relative of a competing fund manager to use Parliament to prise open the corporate veil.
That is irrelevant. This is a disclosure issue related to default super compulsorily taken off fund members. This is where the real hidden commissions & kickbacks / related party transactions really lie. There are big donations being made to the Unions, which are paid to Greens/Labor, & it is coming from somewhere.
The whole issue of remuneration in the totally non transparent industry fund sector will be the next blow up in our industry. You should see client reactions when I show them executive salaries at First State Super and Australian Super.....not for profit maybe, for best interest of members questionable.
Typical ISA & union scumism & hypocrisy. If this was a bank or other retail super fund, all the typical 'morally mortified' like the ISA, Labor, the insane Greens, Choice and the loony left media would all be baying for blood and full disclosure - like they were during the farce of a Royal Commission (until industry funds took the stand and then noticeably the hard hitting lawyers and difficult questions all took a break that day).
I also notice ASIC are not surprisingly quiet as a door mouse during all this. Again if it were a bank, retail fund or insto they would be banging their media whoring drums and declaring that they would be investigating to the full extent of their powers etc ad nauseum.
Can't believe this can't be prised info out of the slimy IFM hands. Tim needs to use FOI if the pathetic parliamentary enquiry powers don't permit him to insist pending charges and legal prosecution.
Richard (Dick) Hedware, do you have any great input? Are we going to see you yet again write in strident defence of the ISA / IFM unblemishable virtue & solid white purity of their souls?
Interesting how UniSuper (in their latest FSG) publicly disclose how they pay their advisers up to $40,000 in bonuses, but if a bank or personal adviser did that, they would be banned for years. Enough is enough.
If one of the objectives of the industry fund movement is to keep fees down then surely they'd be more interested in disclosing such "commercial in confidence" data, and make this a condition of employment. Essentially shame those big bad profit orientated funds into paying staff less and thus giving members more.
Add new comment