Industry funds-owned fund manager, IFM is continuing to be pressed about its operations by the chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Tim Wilson, despite pointing out that it is the only fund manager to be called before the committee.
IFM’s global head of external relations is the former chief executive of Industry Super Australia, David Whiteley who in April noted that the company was the only fund manager to be called before the committee when most other organisations called before it were superannuation funds.
However, that did not stop Wilson writing to IFM Investors less than a fortnight later to ask: “Are any remuneration practices – salaries, bonuses or fees – covered by a ‘deed’ or ‘special deed’ or equivalent instrument for employees at IFM Investors?”
Wilson and the committee received IFM Investor’s reply late last week stating: “Remuneration practices – salaries, bonuses or fees – are not covered by deeds, special deeds or equivalent instruments for employees at IFM Investors”.
“However, as is normal commercial practice for employers and employees when a separation of employment occurs, from time-to-time IFM enters into arrangements covered by a deed,” the fund manager’s response said.
In his April response to the committee, Whitely stated: “IFM has co-operated with the committee since 2019, appearing at its request on two occasions, and responding to over 100 Questions on Notice and many more during hearings”.
“To provide commercially sensitive information to the committee, which its global peers and competitors are not required to do, would place IFM at a competitive disadvantage and could risk the investment returns to members. Further, in some cases, disclosure would constitute a breach of a commercial contract.”
Comments
Pity Wilson doesn't have the powers of that moron Haynes, or the inept ASIC and instigate a full fledged investigation and undoubted legal case and multi-million dollar penalties to these corrupt b*stards.
Richard Hedware, any comments?
of which there is no evidence.
of which there is no evidence.... recorded by our regulators.
It's amazing what you don't see when you are looking the other way.
You jumped on that comment quickly - touchy subject?
of which there is no evidence is a good take.
Why is Wilson picking on this fund? Is it a competitor to other funds run by Wilson's mates?
I have never had a policy issue with the concept of "co-op" super if it was genuine non-profit. Its clear that Industry Funds are very profitable, so profitable that they can give away millions to IFM and the Labor Party etc,
My problems were their BS attack on commissions, when the funds received a commission from insurers when a member purchased underwritten cover: their influence, via political donations and their " holier-than-thou" successful appeal to their ideological mates in ASIC, playing to ASICs anti-adviser base beliefs.
But as a risk specialist I am appalled that ASIC et al allow the industry funds to flog DEFICIENT LIFE, TPD & IP cover under the illusion its cheap. ASIC think its OK that fund members automatically start losing the default lump sum coverage after AGE 37. ASIC apparently approve TPD with delay mechanism such as " rehabilitation" clauses. Then there are IP coverage with Capability clauses, insurance " PDS" that rarely mention Lump Sum tax on TPD benefits from super, and that fact that the Fund always can withdraw the insurance cover. None of this is disclosed to members in a form most could understand.
So I welcome Mr Wilsons digging!
But lets not fool ourselves. The MLC Nominees evidence at the Hayne RC showed the rubbish that retail funds get up to, and their fees were always outrageous for only modest investment returns. The AMP & NML retail funds of the past were also rip offs.
I expect Mr Wilson to also swing his blow-torch in their direction, in the interests of equity.
Yes, but he won't. That's the point.
If Wilson asked the same questions of retail funds and their fund managers, he'd be drowning in a pile of dirt 10 miles high after just one round. He knows it and that's why he leaves them alone - they're too dirty to touch.
Touchy much?
Union super (of which IFM is a part) has been given unofficial regulatory immunity by ASIC, APRA, ACCC and the Royal Commission. Tim Wilson is trying to get to the bottom of this.
Keep asking hundreds more questions Tim. This is not just about exposing the dodgy practices of union funds. It is also about exposing regulators that have failed to to do their jobs competently and impartially.
That's the words of someone who has no experience with reality. I sell to all of them and the amount of regulatory grilling and oversight the Indusrty Funds have to go through each and every year is ridiculous. If only the regulators were so heavy on the banks and for-profit funds, the advice industry might actually be a lot healthier right now.
keep at em Tim there will faulter
He's been wasting our tax money going at them since 2019. And not found much in all that time. Imagine how much dirt he'd have found if he were seriously asking for-profit funds, fund managers, product issuers (LICs anyone?) the same or similar questions. I know, it's unbearable to think about...
good to see the usual union hacks making the obligatory defence of IFA and ISA in general. Normally in the form of anonymous comments of course.
Says Wonder Dog... lol
Looks like one of the union hacks has started using the name "Jo Son". He/she has been very active today. I suspect the word has gone out from union HQ that Wilson is getting too close for comfort, so all hands to the PR pump. Hedware must be having an RDO.
Add new comment