Superannuation reforms are going to generate new compliance risks that super funds haven’t dealt with before, and their current compliance frameworks won’t cover the risks that need to be covered in the future, according to Professional Financial Solutions super fund consultant Simone Knight.
Speaking at the Association of Super Funds of Australia (ASFA) national compliance summit in Melbourne, Knight warned the audience that they needed to review their compliance frameworks to make sure they covered the risks that would emerge from the super reform process.
“It’s a really good idea to start thinking about whether Mysuper and SuperStream will bring in new risks to your fund, especially risks that previously you’ve considered to be non-material,” Knight said.
“Your risk management frameworks as they currently stand probably don’t cover all the areas that will need to be covered in the future,” she said.
PricewaterhouseCoopers partner David Coogan said compliance had been “under the radar” for the industry but there was a whole “wave” of activity emerging that compliance would need to manage.
“Do trustees have the right structure in place to cope with what’s coming down the pipeline?” Coogan asked.
ASFA chief executive Pauline Vamos questioned whether the audience was building flexibility in their compliance structures to deal with reform.
ASFA research showed that super funds were still only thinking about changing their frameworks to deal with the reform.
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.