Did APRA miss super failings because of poor data?

29 January 2019
| By Mike |
image
image
expand image

The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) could have identified problems with respect to under-performing superannuation funds sooner if it had actually gathered and analysed the appropriate data, according to industry funds representative group, the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees (AIST).

The AIST also urged the establishment of a cross-agency taskforce between APRA and the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) to ensure that the overall performance of self-managed superannuation funds (SMSFs) can be better compared with that of APRA-regulated funds.

The AIST even questioned whether APRA sufficiently understands the data provided by superannuation funds in circumstances where funds and their custodians have had to re-lodge information over multiple periods.

In a submission responding to APRA’s Post-implementation Review of the Prudential Framework for Superannuation, the AIST urged the APRA to bring members’ best interest into the equation where prudential and reporting standards are concerned.

It said the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services sector had highlighted many cases where members’ best interests were not the applied test with APRA presently using measures which focus specifically upon providers in the industry and whether consumers have incurred losses.

The submission said the measures currently utilised by APRA may be inappropriate because they fail to capture the cost of choice superannuation product compared to MySuper products.

It said that APRA needed a comprehensive data reporting framework and that in the absence of such data there was insufficient information to assess the performance of the superannuation system.

The AIST submission said that APRA had made many comments about the need to improve the accessibility, consistency and reliability of information that was reported to the regulator, but that there continued to be inconsistent reporting on investment costs across funds with some funds not reporting all costs embedded in investment returns (rather than reflected in disclosed fees).

Read more about:

AUTHOR

 

Recommended for you

 

MARKET INSIGHTS

sub-bg sidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

Squeaky'21

My view is that after 2026 there will be quite a bit less than 10,000 'advisers' (investment advisers) and less than 100...

1 week ago
Jason Warlond

Dugald makes a great point that not everyone's definition of green is the same and gives a good example. Funds have bee...

1 week ago
Jasmin Jakupovic

How did they get the AFSL in the first place? Given the green light by ASIC. This is terrible example of ASIC's incompet...

1 week 1 day ago

AustralianSuper and Australian Retirement Trust have posted the financial results for the 2022–23 financial year for their combined 5.3 million members....

9 months 1 week ago

A $34 billion fund has come out on top with a 13.3 per cent return in the last 12 months, beating out mega funds like Australian Retirement Trust and Aware Super. ...

9 months ago

The verdict in the class action case against AMP Financial Planning has been delivered in the Federal Court by Justice Moshinsky....

9 months 2 weeks ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND