YFYS a learning curve for APRA

The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) kept the Your Future, Your Super performance test “straight forward” for the benefit of consumers and are open to improving the system.

Speaking at the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees (AIST) Superannuation Investment Conference, on why APRA did not release the full results, Katrina Ellis, APRA general manager for superannuation, said it fulfilled what was required by the legislation.

“We publish who passes and who fails, and also the Australian Tax Office (ATO) YourSuper comparison tool is the tool for people to use to compare performance of products,” Ellis said.

Related News:

“We didn’t want to make it confusing for consumers, so we published pass/fail as we thought that was the most straightforward thing.

“It was the first time we’ve done it; we’re open to learning and improving. Next year we’re going to have to do it not just for 80 MySuper products, but for maybe 1,000 Choice products.

“We are interested how we are going to run this again next year and what we can do differently.”

Ellis acknowledged the drawback of the inaugural performance test was that it only targeted a fraction of the full super market.

“Choice is very important and we’re now turning our attention to choice with our first choice heatmap towards the end of the year,” Ellis said.

“It will complement our MySuper heatmap which we’re going to continue to produce on an annual basis.”

Recommended for you




This whole process I don't understand, nor the ATO Comparison Tool - when did we decide a government should provide a market related tool to influence capital direction? Use a 41 Year old, BT My Super ( in the underperforming category) for the 1980's Lifestages - with $573 in fees and 8.18% per annum 7 year returns. Compare to MLC My Super ( Under 55 category, so includes a 41 year old as per BT) - with $658 fees and 7,21% per annum returns - but this fund is in the Performing Category. So I must be missing something but this 41 year old could have just been influenced to move funds for no reason. And at any rate, historical performance is meant to be irrelevant. Will Funds now be saying Historical performance is relevant, because that's the way the government has framed it. Where did we get this so wrong?

Add new comment