Local Government Super (LGS) is seeking an independent chair and two new independent directors after ongoing discussions between its board and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA), as well as a new chief executive.
The Board agreed to a constitutional change to enable these board appointments to better meet the regulator’s requirements around superannuation governance in an attempt to enhance the fund’s governance, performance and sustainability.
The change, which was approved by LGS shareholders last Tuesday, would enable the fund to recruit directors with new skills to supplement the experience of the existing directors, two of which would be displaced to make space for the new chair and two independent replacements. The size of the board would thus grow from eight to nine.
LGS chair, Bruce Miller, noted that expertise in the areas of business and investment management were especially needed in the new directors, in line with APRA’s recent guidance and expectations, and this would be a consideration in their selection.
“Bringing in independent directors with new skills, capabilities and perspectives will strengthen the Board’s ability to provide effective oversight to the execution of the Fund strategy including ensuring that the protection of the best interests of members and delivering strong member outcomes is the top priority in a challenging financial environment,” he added.
LGS expected the new chair and director to be in place by 31 August, this year. Recruitment for the new chief executive was already underway.
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.