ASFA cautions O’Dwyer on CIPRs

1 May 2018
| By Mike |
image
image
expand image

Superannuation fund trustees will need a “safe harbour” defence if they are to be empowered to ‘nudge’ members into comprehensive income products in retirement (CIPRs), according to the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA).

ASFA chief executive, Dr Martin Fahy has written to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, Kelly O’Dwyer pointing out some of the pitfalls the organisation believes are likely to be encountered as a result of the Government pursuing a Retirement Income Covenant or framework with respect to CIPRs.

The ASFA submission specifically pointed to the prospect of a mass-customised CIPR and super trustees being expected to ‘nudge’ or ‘soft default’ members into the products and makes clear that in such circumstances “the concept of ‘nudge’ or ‘soft default’ will need to be defined” and that there will need to be clarification as to who should, and should not be, ‘nudged into’ a CIPR.

The submission also pointed to the interplay between ‘nudging’ and ‘soft default’ in the context of the provision of personal financial advice and the design and distribution obligations which might be legislated in the future.

“There will be a need for a ‘safe harbour’ to protect trustees from liability arising from an inappropriate ‘nudge’/ ‘soft default’ as a result of ‘mass customisation’ and there being insufficient information about the member,” it said.

The ASFA document said any nudge/soft default carried with it considerable risk.

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Submitted by john on Tue, 05/01/2018 - 13:32

Leaving any politicking out of it. Generally and more often than not; the Industry Super Funds have continually outperformed the others. Just look at the Rating tables and refer these :
https://www.superratings.com.au/ratings/winners

http://investmentcentre.moneymanagement.com.au

http://investmentcentre.moneymanagement.com.au/news/752515/who-underperformed-in-the-aussie-equities-space?

Submitted by old bob on Tue, 05/08/2018 - 14:11

One of those Industry Super funds takes over 9 months to pay out funds to beneficiaries upon death. Another Union fund takes 4 weeks to carry out a withdrawal and excepts instructions only via some unknown device called a fax and outsources members work to Lithuania. Another Industry/Union fund is called a balanced fund and yet has 87% in growth assets and compares it to another fund with balanced in it's title with 59% in growth assets.

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...

1 day 8 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....

1 day 8 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....

1 day 9 hours ago