Revalue unlisted assets more frequently – super funds told

9 April 2020
| By Mike |
image
image
expand image

Because the unlisted assets held by superannuation funds are not subject to daily pricing, trustees are currently walking a fine line in determining what is equitable, transparent and defensible in terms of both their members and the regulators, according to major consultancy, Willis Towers Watson (WTW). 

The WTW analysis argues that, in circumstances as volatile as is currently the case, superannuation funds should be revaluing their unlisted assets more frequently “as significant value swings are likely to occur while there are large numbers of transactions across their membership accounts”. 

“In periods of significant market volatility, unlisted asset valuations are problematic. We saw asset owners dealing with this quandary during the global financial crisis (GFC), so it’s not a new complication,” WTW senior investment consultant, Nick Kelly said. “But what may surprise, is that there’s very little consistency in the way super funds and other unlisted asset owners manage the valuation process.” 

“What do trustees and executives need to consider? It’s a particularly important question, given that regulators will undoubtedly ask about what process they’ve adopted,” he said in an analysis released this week. 

“The intractable conundrum of the super fund fiduciary is maintaining a medium- to long-term time horizon of the entire investment portfolio, while members have the ability to ‘switch’ on a short-term basis. Within that Gordian knot, unlisted assets play many valuable roles; however, because they remain without a daily assessment of their value, trustees are walking a fine line in determining what’s equitable, transparent and defensible.” 

He notes that trustees and executives remain responsible for the unit prices struck. “Member switches or redemptions have already begun and are taking place more frequently, but for the most part, valuation changes are yet to flow through to unit prices. Regardless of what valuation a fund or institutional investor gets from its investment manager, trustees and executives remain ultimately responsible for the unit price they strike for members and beneficiaries.” 

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar 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. ...

11 months ago
Kevin Gorman

Super director remuneration ...

11 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 ...

11 months 1 week ago

Jim Chalmers has defended changes to the Future Fund’s mandate, referring to himself as a “big supporter” of the sovereign wealth fund, amid fierce opposition from the Co...

11 hours ago

Demand from institutional investors was the main driver of growth in Australia’s responsible investment (RI) market in 2023, as the industry continued to gain momentum....

12 hours ago

In a new review of the country’s largest fund, a research house says it’s well placed to deliver attractive returns despite challenges....

13 hours ago