ISA argues against governance changes

The long-term outperformance of industry super funds over a 10-year period demonstrate the Federal Government’s proposed changes to not-for-profit super funds are off the mark.

Industry Super Australia (ISA) quoted monthly data from SuperRatings to argue the proposed changes to governance structures of industry super funds, currently before the Federal Parliament would not deliver improved benefits to members, would result in expensive changes to the sector, and should be rejected by Parliament.

ISA director of public affairs, Matthew Linden said: “If anything, the data highlights the persistent underperformance of for-profit, bank-owned funds over the last decade”.

Related News:

“Forcing industry funds to emulate these underperforming retail funds overseen by a majority of independent directors is likely to impact the retirement savings of millions of Australians.”

ISA’s analysis of the September 2017 SuperRatings Fund Crediting Rae Survey, SR50 Balanced Index showed industry super funds returned 10.02 per cent over five years while bank-owned funds returned 7.57 per cent.

While industry super funds returned 5.13 per cent over a 10-year period, bank-owned funds returned 2.86 per cent.




Recommended for you

Comments

Comments

Its about time someone called out the ISC (again) for quoting average returns for retail funds. No super members experience that "average" result. They either get the retail fund "flagship fund" result, often superior to the ISC funds results, or they get the legacy fund result if they are unadvised and haven't shifted themselves out of the old funds.
Of course, bank executives bonuses ride on the excess profits of those legacy products, so they would rather take a bit of ISC flack for "underperformance" and keep their personal rewards. No cultural problem there!
Ultimately, both the ISC and bank executives are culpable for allowing the public to be grossly misled. Sadly, there's been no shortage of opportunists ready to inappropriately push people into SMSFs as an alternative (you retired so you could start a new life as an investment analyst right?). What an industry.

Add new comment