POWERED BY MOMENTUM MEDIA
Industry funds advertising to be scrutinised
AustralianSuper and IFM Investors again face Parliamentary Committee questioning this week as the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics places a focus on superannuation fund advertising.
The chair of the committee, Victorian Liberal back-bencher, Tim Wilson pointed to the focus on advertising expenditures, stating it was “important that the sector is not using its leverage to achieve interests not aligned with financial returns to members, such as needless advertising for a compulsory product or to intimidate listed companies to be participants in public debate”.
The questioning foreshadowed by Wilson aligns with criticism of the chair of Industry Funds Services and IFM Investors, former Labor minister, Greg Combet, for his appearance in industry funds advertising.
It also comes amid questions on notice posed by Wilson around whether industry fund executives were involved in the alleged pressuring of business executives critical of the Victorian Government recent and prolonged COVID-19 lockdown.
Wilson said he was “looking forward to exploring this topic further, as particularly in times like these it is crucial that the superannuation sector is operating effectively, fairly and to the benefit of fund members”.
Also appearing before the committee on Friday will be BT Super, Suncorp and Mercer.
NSW Liberal Senator and former Financial Services Council policy executive, Andrew Bragg has already sought to pressure the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority on the issue of whether industry funds advertising is consistent with the sole purpose test.
Recommended for you
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.
TOP PERFORMING FUNDS
ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND
Fund name
3y(%)pa
1
Spire Oaktree Opportunities XI Second Close
61.07 3 y p.a(%)
2
Spire Oaktree Opportunities XI First Close USD
59.21 3 y p.a(%)
3
DomaCom Lot 21 Chellaston Road Munno Para West SA 5115 Australia
31.56 3 y p.a(%)
4
Fidante Credit Suisse Global Private Equity
31.06 3 y p.a(%)
5
DomaCom 4/27 Crombie Avenue Bundall QLD 4217 Australia
26.81 3 y p.a(%)
No it does not meet the sole purpose test for funds to be advertising! You'd have to be in lala land to think it was ok. Every time we see a billboard on the side of a freeway members contributions have paid for that. Everytime we see an advert on tv members funds have paid for the advert to be made and the screening time. The sole purpose of superannuation in this country is not for the retirement funds of its members, it is to create employment. We, the Australian worke, pay 27 Industry fund CEO's $?M evey year, we pay Boards, we pay Managers of each dept (such as with REST "the Manager for Member Engagement" who never answered my letters to him when my deceased son's superannuation was paid contrary to his nomination and his Will). When the Liberals put Jane Hume in charge of Superannuation they put the fox in charge of the hen house. She's an ex Australian Super employee and won't speak out about the pitfalls around superannuation. I thank God for Tim Wilson, Gerard Rennick, Andrew Bragg, and others who are now beginning to see what a rort superannuation is. Scrap it! The funds have jbecome too powerful, too arrogant and have too much control over the Australian workers money. When a "Trustee" decides someone else will get ur money other than ur nomination - it's gone. Believe me I know. Then a letter from REST tells you that your dead son had the wrong nomination. Very helpful after the event. They had it on file his nomination wasn't dependent so why did the Trustee tell me "he should have had a binding nomination" when it would have been invalid with non dependent beneficiaries??? I have no faith in their competence. Can anyone answer this for me?