The profit-to-member superannuation funds represented by Industry Super Australia (ISA) and the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees (AIST) have agreed to a merger towards a single “strong and unified voice” in the sector.
In a joint statement to Super Review, the industry bodies said: “The new entity will build on the impressive legacies of achievements of both AIST and ISA and combine the knowledge, expertise, and capabilities of those organisations to be a powerful advocate for super fund members on all systemic matters relevant to super and retirement.
“As balances grow and more members reach retirement age, the long-term interests of members are best served by a compelling voice that is focused on protecting and growing their savings.”
The talks of a merger have been circling for at least eight months after ISA and AIST confirmed they were in talks in late January.
At the time, whether any potential merger would be open to member consultation had not been confirmed by either of the two major industry bodies.
ISA manage collective programs on behalf of nine industry super funds while AIST represent some 36 profit-to-member funds which include industry, corporate, and public sector funds.
The industry bodies have some overlapping members that constitute the country’s largest funds, including $240 billion AustralianSuper which is Australia’s largest super fund; $100 billion Hostplus; and $74 billion HESTA.
“The boards of AIST and ISA and their funds continue to work towards creating this new entity,” the statement added.
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.