Industry funds have been warned against resting on their laurels just because they emerged largely unscathed from the Royal Commission.
The chief executive of Australian Super, Ian Silk told the opening plenary of the Conference of Major Superannuation Funds (CMSF) on the Gold Coast that there was no room for “triumphalism” just because not profit to member funds had been referred to the regulators by the Royal Commissioner, Kenneth Hayne.
“The fact that industry funds emerged largely uncriticised is no cause for triumphalism,” he said. “The fact that not found to have done anything significantly wrong should be the minimum standard,” he said.
“There is no place for complacency or hubris. The retail sector may regroup albeit that their business model makes that a challenge,” Silk said.
The AustralianSuper chief executive also asked profit to member superannuation funds to question whether they were doing the best for their members in terms of services and returns to members.
“Are we capable of providing the new services and products, including retirement products that members will need,” he asked.
Comments
Yeah ASIC how are they meant to find anything if you haven't even reviewed one file......
Probably because the Royal Commission and ASIC were overwhelmed by the dirt files from the banking and finance sector.
Remember the banks with the Government decided that if a Royal Commission was going to have to happen, then the banks and the Government agreed to give it an early deadline. Maybe if they gave the Royal Commission a longer duration, then it might have had time to dig up dirt on the industry funds. Then again with that extra time, the Royal Commission would have had time to dig up even more dirt on the banks and certain parts of the financial services industry.
Rubbish, Just imagine what they will find when they actually review an industry fund advice I bet they find a lot of "personal advice" sorry I mean general being given and lot of advice not in the clients best interest...... If the banks can't get it right chances are industry funds are not getting it right either. might have something to do laws being changed every 12 months not once consistence law for every one. we have crave outs for this fund but not these funds its hard to keep up.
Not one review into the Industry funds advice how???? 27 years and not one review. crazy.
Looks like you are in a no win situation.
Hedware, you are getting silly now and your ideas/arguments now seem to be childish at best. Seriously, you are saying it is the period of time taken by the RC that prevented it looking at Industry Funds?
If you have any respect for retail clients should rightly have consumer protection than you SHOULD be worried about Industry Funds. You have been given many fact about why this is the case. The fact that you ignore these facts means you are either a very silly person (which does not seem to fit) or you are simply pushing an agenda - which does seem to fit.
In the end Hedware I hope your agenda is worth the pain and damage caused to retail clients.
Really: -
ASIC has never investigated Industry Super (they had plenty of time before the RC to do this.
ASIC believes their is no issue with the Industry Funds - yet they have no evidence to support these views.
Performance of the Industry Funds are over inflated unlisted assets and assets that have CAPITAL risk attached being classified as DEFENSIVE. On the scale this is being done with retail clients life savings and you defend this???
Fees charged to all members and inter-fund advice being provided to only a few.
- Inter Fund advice being classified as general advice so that the TRUSTEE HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY TO THE RETAIL CLIENT. You defend this?
- The list goes on. Do what you like with your own money mate and invest it on gold for all I care BUT retail clients DESERVE PROTECTION. You defend the indefensible - and I can only assume it is for your undisclosed agenda.
Anonymous - why do you keep hiding behind the coward's handle?
Ok Heware, does that make a difference?
WOT - don't waste your breathe - Richard (AKA 'Dick") Hedware prevaricates and obfuscates any direct questions or lines of logic. He either is utterly inept or utterly biased, although I am beginning to believe he is both in equal portions, along with a decent dose of 'touched by the gods' thrown in for good measure.
When all else fails he will either throw in an insult (eg 'hiding behind anonymous' - like 'Hedware' reveals his true identity! Moronic line of reasoning at best), or else change the topic with no reference, debate or sensible refutation to any question asked or point made.
I quite enjoy baiting the little ISA sycophant on this forum, and avidly look for his absurd comments.
You have lost the argument when you are talking from the gutter.
You admit it?
Taaa Daaa!!! Round of applause for proving my point, thank you yet again Richard :) :) :)
Richard Hed - OMG!!! I am sooo surprised to see your strident red voice jumping into ISA defence yet again. I know you've tried to convince us that you're not paid by them, but if that's true then you're even more inept than most of us believe, as clearly you dilligently guard ISA's best interests, you make sure you align yourself utterly with their goals and have no conflict in doing so, so really collecting a fee for all the service you've done them would be in order! Even ASIC wouldn't argue that, but then again, they seem not to argue any issue with their pet love.
Hedware, I admire you for your determination and never give up attitude - I just scratch my head and wonder what will it take for even you to understand the massive problems you not only deny, but seem to want expanded.
ASIC, as a regulator, has not investigated Industry Super FOR 27 YEARS.
How can you defend that?
How can you stand by and and not ask questions about that?
Are you really prepared to base your reputation on INDUSTRY SUPER on any claim they make?
It is a little hard to believe there isn't something to hide when a royal commission said into trade unions cfmeu are thugs they are also the high receiving money the highest amount from "director contributions" Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) – $2,884,168 for 2017 makes you wonder well if the government have concerns with the union but somehow the involvement with industry funds doesn't need to be investigated.....
If I have ever seen a conflict of interest this is one...... not to mention the breach of sole purpose test with corporate tickets effectively buying employers to direct money into certain funds also these guys are not advisers so no soft dollar registered needed... advisers within the fund can charge clients super for advice but external planners cannot is this in the clients best interest having limited advice.... Not to mention all the comparison sites are always retail vs industry fund...
why don't they compare industry funds vs industry funds.... are the research houses just getting paid for write comparisons that are convenient for the fund that are giving them money????
Unions are decent honest humans - just look at old mate Michael Williamson ex-HSU boss who stole $20mill, and less than 5 years later has not had to repay a dime and is now free from jail living in a waterside mansion. Check the SMH article here (which interestingly was one of the very few media sources to even air this - ABC noticeably absent) https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/union-boss-michael-williamson-out-of...
Yes staggering that Williamson, a white collar criminal, was not locked away for a very long time.
Add new comment