Super fund members want their funds to have a higher profile, according to a new report by CoreData.
According to the report, members are looking for their super funds to drive public thought leadership and be seen as taking the lead in commenting on financial markets and the economy - a space which has been dominated by stock brokers and banks.
Whilst members overall are satisfied with their super funds, most recently driven by a recovery in
performance, about 70 per cent of members believe the superannuation industry should raise its profile. Furthermore, more than one in six members say that super funds should play a leading in role in discussing investment and market issues on the news and other television programs.
CoreData Head of Advice, Wealth and Super, Salvador Saiz said, "Members understand the significant influence of the sector and funds on financial markets and the economy, so it's not surprising to see that members would want funds to take a lead publicly. For one, it would give funds a more transparent profile and allow members to put a face to funds and would give funds a profile beyond that seen in advertisements and sponsorship."
The report also states most members do not want their fund to merge, with the large majority saying it is important to find out about benefits for members and any changes to services offered if their fund was to merge with another fund. The main concerns over mergers focus on changes to fees, deteriorating returns and loss of benefits to members, in that order.
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.