The Financial Services Council has concerns about the accuracy of Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) data used for the performance test after the regulator reissued its MySuper heatmaps.
The 2022 MySuper heatmaps were re-issued by APRA today (24 February) after concerns about international index data for listed international equities, a staple of MySuper funds' allocations.
While it did not result in any changes to the funds identified as poor performance or significantly poor performance, the FSC was concerned about the quality of APRA’s data, particularly if the test was to be extended to Choice products.
The extension to Choice products had already been delayed once due to data inaccuracies.
FSC chief executive, Blake Briggs, said: “Today's disclosure that the heatmaps and performance assessment for MySuper products was incorrectly applied is concerning as it has the potential to harm consumers and distort competitive markets.
“The Government must ensure that super performance tests are run on accurate data as consumer harm and tax consequences could result from incorrect advice being given to super members.
“This development follows the deferral in the Choice heatmap at the end of last year because APRA was also unable to resolve inaccuracies with data collected under their new reporting requirements.
“The Government will need to tread carefully in resolving issues with data accuracies as they look to extend the MySuper performance test to Trustee Directed Products as the performance assessment reported this year would be based on unaudited data.”
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.