Are industry funds bullying and intimidating the Morrison Government?

The current industry superannuation funds campaign against Government’s Your Future, Your Super legislation could act as a catalyst for the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) taking action over breaches of the sole purpose test.

APRA has revealed that 12 funds are under scrutiny with respect to their expenditures, notwithstanding the fact that the regulator said it was not empowered to deal with Industry Funds Services (IFS) because it is an industry association.

Faced with questioning by the chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Tim Wilson, APRA revealed that Wilson had already been on its case with respect to the industry funds campaign, which Wilson described as being an “effort to bully and intimidate the Government and through it the Parliament”.

Related News:

“We currently have a campaign being run by an industry body on behalf of some superannuation funds and it seems like an effort to bully and intimidate the Government and, by default, the parliament of Australia,” he said. “How is that consistent with the sole purpose which is to advance the interests of members and their returns for retirement?”

APRA chair, Wayne Byres referred to earlier correspondence between APRA and Wilson and said that there was “no black and white rule on advertising”.

“You have to look at each case on its merits,” Byres said.

“We became aware of that case last week and we are looking at it. Clearly it’s a campaign by an industry association and the members of that industry association obviously contribute but we don’t directly control an industry association so we have to have a look at the circumstances by which funds decide and look at the value they extract from their participation.”

APRA deputy chair, Helen Rowell said that the regulator was engaging with the superannuation trustees who are linked to that campaign to understand the decision-making process and the analysis that was undertaken by that trustee.

She said that APRA was looking at 12 funds in terms of expenditure and that there were two or three where APRA had gone back looking for more information.

“We do not yet have all of that information so we have not yet formed a view,” she said.




Recommended for you

Author

Comments

Comments

Ok then if it can't deal with IFS because it's an industry association, then it should call out the funds calling themselves Not for profit, because how else can IFS fund it's activities, if not from a contribution from the funds. If the FPA or like had funding from large super funds and more of a spine imagine the advertising drive and messaging over decades that could be positioned, just like the IFS has done.

Well if that's how Mr Wilson feels, then at least he understands what it's like to be on the other side of one sided fight, just like advisers who have no chance on an uneven playing field and with a well funded combatant. And I thought the Lib side of politics was meant to have all the money and power? Where's the money to support the idealogy?

And your point is...? Labor has rivers of gold flowing in via industry super and union fee gouging, hence why the LNP are intent on slowing the flow.

Are you a socialist/Labor supporter? otherwise your comment is meaningless.

My point is, where is the money for support to combat them from the Retail super cohort. They have more money than the ISA so where is there attack ads and campaign? It's either because they can't mount a credible argument, prefer to keep the profit because their greedy, or because they don't dare peep over the turret because the RC showed them the leftist government public service will attack them, so they went to water. Either way advisers are the target. And Mr Wilson is getting a sense of that.

The retail super side does not need to run TV advertisements. They do things differently and they do these things behind closed doors with politicians and public servants in boardrooms, parliamentary offices, restaurants, corporate offices. The presenters are very competent and the presentations are rather good. The bigger shows invite directors, consultants, bankers and financial advisor representatives to add weight to the positions being pushed. All seems pretty effective.

This approach avoids competing TV advertising campaigns. The only ones who miss out are the TV advertising executives.

Wilson is still lobbying for the IPA even though he is a member of Parliament - wonder what kickbacks he is getting?

Little close to home huh Richard (Dick) Hedware? Funny how you never raise the opposite side of views, even when MP/Senator/ex-Labor leader Shorten's wife is heading industry super, or when people like Greg Combet actively works against financial planners and then lands a plum 'consulting' role with union super...

You are hilarious!! :) Keep up the one sided views and left leaning lunatics, it is extremely entertaining!!

Quite the opposite as my interest is in the retail side. I want the industry funds around to force the retail funds to perform better than they are - after all their staff are paid well.

It's about competition in the marketplace. Isn't that what you IPA guys want - competition? No not really - you lot want monopolies and serfdom.

BTW - I am not sure Innes Wilcox who heads up Ai Group would like you suggesting that he had a plum job as a director of Australian Super for some nine years. In case you are unaware, Ai Group is an employer group and appoints about half of the directors to to Australian Super. Australian Super happens to be an industry fund.

Ah I see, an epiphany! You would prefer ALL super funds lie to members about performance, asset allocations, asset valuations and propping this all up with incoming contributions to pay out exiting members - all without the need to provide real advice, nor justify fees.

I finally get your viewpoint now, where do I sign up for my red flag to wave, comrade?

It is well known that you don't understand asset performance metrics, asset allocation strategies, non-listed assets and risk-return profiling whatever the superannuation/pension manager. You have had more of an epiphenomenon than an epiphany.

Well here is your chance, please pray tell, illuminate a poor deluded soul like me in your great 'portfolio asset theories' that I am sure will rival Markowitz, Smith, Boemle, Gordon and given your undying loyalty to union super, Madoff as well.

I mean that is the school where all you guys learned to lie about asset valuations and create glowing annual reports, year after year...

Oh, and junior, leave any 'clever' word play to the grown ups, you just end up sounding even sillier then usual which in itself is quite amusing.

Will keep the words short for you.

Of course they're going to challenge the YFYS changes. It undermines the strength of their main source of increasing Industry Fund membership through the industrial award system.

You got that 100% right Hedware !!

You seem to also be delusional, mentally ill, or like your old mate, Hed for Labor Boys, actually just a union super or Labor rabble rouser & plant.

I just don't understand how membership of an industry organization falls within the definition of the sole purposes tests.

The industry funds have mostly outperformed the retail and bank funds for growth/returns. So that is the most important decision making for those with super. The poorer performing retail and bank funds have left many in a bad situation like the fraudulent AMP etc. just refer to the hayne royal commission.

John, repeating a lie over and over again doesn't make it true. However you are right that it does deceive a lot of people into making bad decisions. Union (aka "Industry") super funds are the new AMP.

Why bother with an impact statement? There haven't been any impact statements for FOFA, LIF, FASEA, any of the other law changes affecting advisers, nor any of the other blindly followed Hayne recommendations from the royal commission...

Everything will work out fine... no impact statement required. :P

Super funds are being pressured to merge. A few CEO's might lose their jobs. They need the SGC increase to make additional margins. It's all about FUM. Perhaps also AwareSuper is campaigning hard and counting on an SGC increase in order to replace those corporate bonds that members invested in, and subsequently devalued when they purchased StatePlus and had to payout on fees for no service. Take a little from this member, give it to this member.

I see no difference between industry funds contributing to an industry body and the industry body lobbying the government to the bank backed retail funds overcharging and buying non-arms-length overpriced services from the bank parent and the bank parent lobbying the government via the ABA. At least the industry funds are open in this lobbying with a mass advertising campaign rather than lobbying in the shadows of parliament house.

Add new comment