Industry funds confirmed as RC winners

The degree to which industry superannuation funds have emerged as Royal Commission winners has been reinforced by new Roy Morgan research which has confirmed the degree to which they have pulled away from retail funds in terms of member satisfaction.

What is more, AMP Limited funds appear to encounter the worst of the fall-out.

The Roy Morgan research revealed industry funds had out-performed their retail counterparts in terms of satisfaction with their financial performance and satisfaction overall.

Related News:

The research, undertaken in May, revealed industry funds scored 62.5 per cent with respect to satisfaction with their financial performance, well above that of retail funds which scored 56.5 per cent, with the Roy Morgan analysis stating that this six point lead was up from 1.8 per cent 12 months ago.

The research analysis said that in the six months to May, this year, the average member satisfaction with retail funds decreased by 3.7 per cent and that over the same period, industry funds improved by 0.5 per cent

The analysis said that in May 2019, 10 of the top 12 performing retail and industry funds, based on member satisfaction with their financial performance were industry funds, with the highest rating for Unisuper with 70.9 per cent, followed by Tasplan on 69.6 per cent.

It said the only two retail funds to make it to the top 12 were Macquarie with 66.6 per cent and Mercer on 64.3 per cent.

“The top 12 are by no means a uniform group, ranging from 70.9 per cent member satisfaction down to only 58.2 per cent for Sunsuper,” the analysis said.

The Roy Morgan analysis said the lowest satisfaction for major super funds beyond the 12 best performers were AMP (49.3 per cent), ASGARD (50.9 per cent) and BT (52.2 per cent).

Recommended for you




But out here in the real world, we just keep coming across case after case of people who are discovering that large industry funds are becoming the new AMP. Too big, & with difficulty getting claims resolved, if ever. The minute you lose a reliable service support person, your're in deep trouble. I sent a request through for info on the new HostPlus SMI investments (for SMSF trustees] & got a "we'll get back to you within 48 hours" That was over 2 weeks ago. Get the drift?

Let's hope someone from HostPlus is reading MoneyManagement.
Not surprising to see Macquarie in top 10 as its customer service is exceptional.

Yep. The new AMP. Complete with "intra fund advice" as the new commissions. It wouldn't surprise if Brenner, Caprioli, Helmich, Guggenheimer and co resurfaced in Industry Fund land to give them a guiding hand.

Intra-fund advice is wrong on so many levels and thousands of Australians will rely on this totally conflicted sub-standard advice that does NOT even have to be in the best interests of the person receiving it..... just so wrong!!!

Dover and the 400 advisers the biggest losers out of the RC. Followed by adviser Mental Health.

Yep, out here in the real world, I have experienced a recent case of an admin person at a large Industry Super Fund verbally advising a retired, post age 60 member that if they withdrew a portion of their superannuation benefits they would be subject to taxation on the benefits.
This member had never received any direct contact or advice from this fund for nearly 25 years and yet a component of the annual admin fee was allocated as an advice fee.
The only advice this member received in 25 years and was paying for 25 years was wrong and was provided over the phone when the fund realised they may be at risk of potentially losing some of the member's funds.
....and the recommendations from the RC don't appear to have a problem with this !
One game, but 2 sets of rules.
This is often referred to as cheating, but in this case, it's just the way you play the game in order to win at all costs.

As least the the member was alive to receive the call.

Please explain your point Hedware.

This comment is even more baffling than your usual comments Hedware. Are you ok?

Guess you have forgotten the discovery of the Royal Commission of dead people still being charged for advice. Not too many posters here got upset about that practice.

Stupid comment. It is up to the executor to notify the adviser of the death of a client. These fees would have been payable for a couple of months while the estate was being wound up, and the adviser would likely have assisted with the paperwork to pay the funds to the beneficiary. Should they have done this work for free?

No I'm pretty sure everyone remembers. It's just that your straw-man arguments and ad hominem deflections are becoming more and more disjointed in your never ending crusade on behalf of the ISA. Are you sure you're okay?

You're right Matt D....I think Hedware is unwell, confused and disorientated.
Comments are becoming noticeably repetitive and seemingly brainwashed in their delivery.
Maybe he has been kidnapped and then re-programmed when released back into society.

I am sure most long-term advisers out there in practices are aware that the general public are pretty shallow and never go beyond the surface of most things. I wonder how many people out there realise that these so-called "Industry Funds" are actually UNION operated superannuation funds. They are not Industry funds at all. Then why are they called "Industry Funds?" It's because the average person out there who does not look past the glossy front cover of any PDS would not be inclined to put their money in a Super Fund run by the likes of the union officials you see in the courts on a variety of charges. These UNION funds generously financially support the Australian Labor Party, but the vast majority of Australians voted against Labor at the last election. Did these same fund members ever think that their own Superannuation fund money was used to support that which they voted against?
But even the smart end of town was tricked. A lot of the fund managers were seduced by the huge FUM given to them by the UNION funds so never bucked the system. Now the UNION funds are setting up their own in-house funds management offices and pulling the FUM out of the fund managers to the point where several of them will no longer be viable.
It's another example of that old adage "be careful what you wish for".

Reluctantly motivated to refute the rubbish put up by T Planner. I've never supported Labor in my long life but been involved with 2 Industry Funds (IF) for over 25 years and very familiar with several others.
The following statements are false:
IF's are Union operated.
IF's generously support the ALP.
Nothing wrong with overpriced fund managers finally facing the truth-- their excessive fees for generally low or zero out performance have cost members plenty in their retirement balances.

The Industry Funds well delivered marketing on out-performance at the lowest cost all being done for the benefit of members sounds great but it is still advertising to sell the product - Industry Super. If you work for Industry Super and provide Advice, be it either Infra Fund (what they call simple) or Personal Advice, Industry Super employees are there to sell Industry Super - and it's all branded "For the benefits of the member". I still view this as simply sales, sales and more product for sale (and some had Qantas points).

Whenever I see people trying to deny the fact that unions want control over superannuation in Australia, I just show them this quote from Simon Crean in 1981:

If the link doesn't work, here it is in text format: "What we must recognise at this early stage of union involvement in the Superannuation issues is that control over the funds will provide unions and government with considerable financial leverage. That leverage can be used to advance the cause of Socialism in Australia." - Simon Crean, ACTU President, speaking to the ACTU Congress in 1981.

It's been 38 years... time to move on champ.

I think it's been 38 years since people were using the phrase "champ" !
Time to move on ?

Methuselah said the same thing as Crean.

Beautiful work Matt D.!
And here's one for P Kennon's comment.
I reckon the $18,438,517 that was provided directly to the trade unions through the re-direction of Industry Super Funds directors fees between the 2013-14 and 2016-17 financial years is what most people would consider to be substantial and significant financial support of the ALP and their associated entities.
The re-direction of directors fees is simply a clever way of funneling members monies to the trade union movement and hence the Labor Party.
The 5 biggest union recipients during this period from Industry Super funds (directors fees) was:
CFMEU $2,884,168
United Voice $2,386,164
ACTU $2,050,363
AWU $1,796,158
AMWU $1,495,898
So, if $18.5 mill is not considered to be " generous "....what is ????

Be interested for your sources for the amounts you have listed. Is your source the IPA?

Just out of curiosity, did the IPA's report show the amounts that the banks got for appointing directors to retail funds, or were they only concerned with one category of director? And if they did, how did those amounts compare?

Any statistics Agent86?

A good headline proclaiming a winner from the RC. But I always saw the public of Australia as being the winners, particularly as the RC showed an industry whose 'helpful and caring' veneer was exposed for what it truly was - a complete and utter sham. For me there were absolutely no industry participants who could be proclaimed as 'winners' in any sense of the word. Rather, the events exposed during the RC had actually been going on for so long that they should have been brought to the publics attention a long long time ago. Where were all those 'conscientious' bank planners who could have easily exposed abhorrent behaviors many times over!

No response to facts fellas?
Performance of a union funds grossly overstated.
If a balanced fund had 92% in shares property and ahem “alternative” assets (HostPlus) then there would be funds equal to or greater performing than the union funds, we have the facts to support this.
The failure to accurately “compare the pair” super comparison in BS ads using the correct asset allocation is a blight on the regulator, they are effectively lies.
Wouldn’t it be great if these criminals were exposed, feathering the nests of bullying unions, sponsoring sporting events with members funds, members not in receipt of advice paying for those who are advised by an advisor who is paid from all members accounts!!
Best interest duty, I think not!!

The Royal Commission certainly exposed many people of doubtful integrity, poor moral character, excessively greedy and possibly criminal minds.
There are some for-profit funds outperforming some not-for-profit funds but general the conclusion is that overall not-for-profit funds have been outperforming most for-profit funds on a number of measures and over time. It would be good if for-profit funds could lift their game and provide better net returns than they have been doing.

" doubtful integrity, poor moral character..........possibly criminal minds".
And it's ok for directors of Industry Super Funds to be shoveling their fees into the CMFEU headed up by John Setka.?
This would be laughable it it wasn't so incredibly serious.
Just answer one simple question Hedware.
Do you believe it is ok that Directors of Industry Super funds channel millions and millions of dollars to the trade union movement and associated Labor party entities ????
Just a yes or no will suffice.

You know more about industry super funds than I do. But you keep forgetting that employers must be on the boards of industry super funds - it is not necessary of for-profit boards to have employee representatives despite employees paying into for-profit super funds.

You say "shovelling their fees into..." What do you mean by their fees? If 'fees' mean their director fees then I suppose they could give their fees to anyone they wished - even your IPA lot.
Like you I have no truck with Setka - seems a nasty piece of work. To some extent, the CMFFEU get what they deserve - should have kicked him out long ago.
As for your millions and millions of dollars (soon you will hit billions), I don't know if you are right as I have seen no facts to support your claims (I take no notice of your IPA slander). But I suspect you are exaggerating.
You have consistently failed to disclose how much your for-profit funds are pouring into IPA and that is more concerning to me as for-profits already charge too much in fees and reduce net gain.

Add new comment