Competition and choice is not the Holy Grail

Member-driven competition and choice is not necessarily the Holy Grail, according to the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees (AIST).

Addressing Super Review’s Future of Super conference on Thursday, AIST chief executive, Eva Scheerlinck said while the Productivity Commission asserted that member-driven competition and choice would lead to improved outcomes in super, AIST had not seen evidence to support this.

Scheerlinck said while choice had 40,000 different investment options, there was less regulatory oversight, disclosure, and publicly available performance data.

Related News:

“The protracted debate over ASIC’s [the Australian Securities and Investments Commission’s] controversial RG 97 regulation on disclosure of fees and costs in superannuation – now stretching to almost three years – highlights just how resistant some choice providers are to full and meaningful disclosure,” she said.

“Competition among for-profit sector providers in the choice sector has seen them very successfully lobby to deliver major carve-outs to consumer protection. Poor disclosure across the choice sector makes it virtually impossible for the average consumer to compare products.”

Scheerlinck noted that choice failed members when for-profit providers charged significantly higher fees for their balanced option in the choice arena than in the MySuper arena despite the fact that the two funds had almost identical asset allocations.

“Overall, members of for-profit funds in the choice arena have paid more and got less.  If this is competition at work, it’s not working for choice members,” she said.

“We also remain concerned that poor disclosure in the choice sector puts default fund members at risk of being more easily enticed into a choice fund where providers can charge higher fees.

“Default members do not exist in isolation. As long as fund members can switch out of one fund into another, the choice sector and the default sector will remain inextricably intertwined. In a compulsory super system, it’s not good enough to simply dismiss poor disclosure in choice as a ‘buyer-beware’ issue."

 

 




Related Content

Survey reveals super split on Royal Commission

Superannuation fund executives and trustees were overwhelmingly in favour of the Government holding a Royal Commission into the banking and financial ...more

Super returns start 2018 in positive territory

2017 proved to be another positive year for Australian superannuation funds, according to the latest analysis released by SuperRatings.The specialist ...more

Trustee Partners approves DomaCom for retail super

Trustee Partners, which offers trustee solutions for clients with superannuation and managed investments, has approved DomaCom Fund as an investment o...more

Author

Comments

Add new comment