The proposal to insert the word ‘financial’ into ‘best interests duty’ as part of the Your Future, Your Super bill is Parliamentary overreach and will have upfront negative financial implications for funds and beneficiaries, according to Market Forces.
In its submission to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, the advocacy group said it strongly recommended to reject the proposal. It said including the word ‘financial’ was unnecessary as the existing duty required no further legislative clarification or amendment.
It said amending the duty:
“The new duty will create legal uncertainty and is not consistent with limiting the financial burden on superannuation fund members. At the outset trustees will be obliged to incur costs for advice and compliance. For example, a suite of internal processes – those based upon the existing duty and case law that interprets it – are likely to require amendment,” the submission said.
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.