Super performance test for consumers

8 October 2020
| By Jassmyn |
image
image
expand image

The superannuation performance test, announced in Tuesday’s Budget, will allow consumers to compare “apples with apples”, according to Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services, and Financial Technology, Jane Hume.

Speaking at a Financial Services Council (FSC) briefing, Hume said the performance benchmarks that would be part of the online comparison tool did not necessarily take into account the benchmark funds had set for themselves.

“We want to make sure we can compare apples with apples. One of the problems with the industry in the past and something that has bewildered consumers is that they don’t know what it is they are comparing.

“What benchmark funds have set themselves is entirely up to them and of course each will do something slightly different based on asset allocation, investment styles, etc. and we encourage them to do so as long as they can consistently perform and keep lowering fees.”

When asked about whether the tool would take into account funds taking on greater risk and growth assets that at times made funds look good, Hume said the performance tool would do that to ensure it could compare “apples with apples”.

“We have to remember this is consumer focused. It’s about the consumer and making sure they understand. APRA [Australian Prudential Regulation Authority] can do the stuff between funds, and they’re doing a good job in managing that side of the equation already.

“This is about consumers more than anything else and I don’t think this is a particularly relevant concern in this case.”

She noted that the comparison tool did not give the APRA any extra powers as it was funds were being subjected to an objective annual performance test and had “nothing to do with APRA”.

“We’re talking about an underperformance of 0.5% over an eight-year benchmark. It’s not about a bad quarter or bad year, we’re talking about persistence underperformance.

“Young people languishing in a fund could potentially cost them $7,000 to their retirement savings. What’s the counter factual to this? People should sit in those funds like mushrooms and not know what’s going on?

“We think it’s important funds take responsibility and notify members of underperformance but also demonstrate what they could have got in a fund that wasn’t underperforming.”

Tuesday’s Budget revealed that if superannuation funds failed two consecutive performance tests they would not be allowed to take on new members.

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Add new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Recommended for you

sidebar subscription

Never miss the latest developments in Super Review! Anytime, Anywhere!

Grant Banner

From my perspective, 40- 50% of people are likely going to be deeply unhappy about how long they actually live. ...

4 months ago
Kevin Gorman

Super director remuneration ...

4 months 1 week ago
Anthony Asher

No doubt true, but most of it is still because over 45’s have been upgrading their houses with 30 year mortgages. Money ...

4 months 1 week ago

Australia’s second-largest super fund has confirmed it is expanding its presence in the UK following significant investment in the region....

14 hours ago

While the Financial Advice Association Australia said it supports a performance testing regime “in principle”, it holds reservations about expanding this scope to retirem...

5 hours ago

The property group, owned by industry super fund Aware Super, has announced two new projects with a total construction value of $320 million that will add more than 700 h...

22 hours ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND