Super funds' risk appetites need to be translated into operational measures that can be used throughout various parts of the business and for different types of risk, Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) member Ian Laughlin has said.
Speaking at The Actuaries Institute Conference, Laughlin said risk appetite needed to be translated, as quantifiably as possible, into tolerances for day-to-day business purposes which accommodated different audiences.
This could eliminate any inconsistencies and allow a process to amend unworkable tolerances due to changing market conditions.
Laughlin said although there was no best-practice approach to expressing risk appetite via a risk-appetite statement, trustees often commonly confused the idea of risk controls or check-points with appetite.
"To help avoid this sort of problem, it is useful to think in terms of outcomes — that is, in considering a particular risk type, what is the worst outcome that could be considered to be acceptable," he said.
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.