Countries around the world need to engage in an eight-point discussion on the way pensions are delivered globally to meet the demands of changing population demographics.
That was the message from the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) CEO Pauline Vamos, who was speaking at the 3rd Asia-Pacific Forum in Beijing.
“Countries across the globe are designing, developing, diversifying and even deconstructing their pension systems,” she said.
“There are always areas for improvement as systems mature and adjustment is needed as economies and demographics change.”
The most important part of the conversation was making sure members are informed, advised and engaged, Vamos said.
She urged countries to think about delivering private pensions and governance as a “global brand” and a “global conversation.
She wants the world to think about pension system design, the role of pension capital in both local and global economies, and the regulatory and supervisory frameworks under which pensions run.
“There are always areas for improvement as systems mature and adjustment is needed as economies and demographics change,” she said.
“We are all at a different stage and this is why it is important we take the time to share our experiences and build global perspectives.”
She also believes system implementation and connectivity, fiduciary governance standards, operational and investment delivery, and the connection with other public policy outcomes should also be part of the discussion.
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 Coalition, which has pledged to reverse any changes if it wins next year’s election.
In a new review of the country’s largest fund, a research house says it’s well placed to deliver attractive returns despite challenges.
Chant West analysis suggests super could be well placed to deliver a double-digit result by the end of the calendar year.
Specific valuation decisions made by the $88 billion fund at the beginning of the pandemic were “not adequate for the deteriorating market conditions”, according to the prudential regulator.