Hostplus has taken out the Best Industry Fund category at Super Review’s Super Fund of the Year Awards, with Heron’s judging panel nominating leading performance and member-focused services as the driving factors.
The fund emerged as the winners from a pool of high-performing super funds including AustralianSuper, CareSuper, Equip MyFuture, HESTA, Rest, Sunsuper for life and UniSuper.
Group executive of retirement and advice, Paul Watson, said strategy was key.
“[We’ve] ensured that our strategic asset strategy and allocation is designed around some of the competitive advantages we’re blessed with,” he said.
The panel noted the fund’s consistently high rating across all fund features as well as their directed services to members in their industry sector.
Watson said the fund was “very thoughtful” in making sure its members were adequately prepared for retirement.
“Whether it’s our investment strategy, insurance offering or advice offering, we give a lot of thought to what’s in the best interests of our member cohorts”.
Hostplus’ interactive member statements and decrease in premiums also put them a step above the rest given the criteria assessed competitiveness of GL insurance premiums and administration and investment costs.
The panel also pointed to the fund’s “defined target” post-retirement pension option as well as enhancements in the pipeline designed to further increase member engagement.
“It’s fantastic and greatly appreciated recognition for a job we strive very hard to get right,” said Watson.
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.