The superannuation industry needs to work on making mergers seamless in the light of a continuing trend towards consolidation, according to Asset Super chief executive John Paul.
Paul said Asset had encountered difficulties in its merger with CareSuper as Asset members' third party authorisations and binding death benefit nominations would lapse once the merger was finalised.
He said Asset had made its case to the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA), which was lobbying government to resolve the issue going forward.
"There's going to be others following us. Although it may not get to the light of day for us, it might help others who follow behind us," Paul said.
He said Asset was in the process of contacting members to advise they will need to fill out the paperwork again.
"We would have liked to say 'there's no paperwork required, you're just going to be transferred and we'll take care of all the back office administration such that we'll transfer your insurance' and everything would go across seamlessly - that's the perfect result we would have preferred," Paul said.
Currently, third party authorisations and death benefit nominations are legal agreements with the superannuation fund trustee, and once the trustee is gone the agreements are void.
Third party authorisations affect financial advisers that have been authorised to act on a member's behalf and also the parents and the carers of some members.
ASFA has been consulting with Treasury on a number of issues in respect to super fund mergers.
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.