Australian unlisted infrastructure and unlisted property being included as specific asset in the superannuation performance test has been welcomed by the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA).
The Government today released its exposure draft for the Treasury Laws Amendment (Your Future, Your Super) Bill 2021 for consultation.
It said including Australian unlisted infrastructure and unlisted property would improve the accuracy of the performance test, strengthen the focus of the test on investment outcomes delivered to members, and ensure that Australian super funds could invest with confidence in these domestic assets.
ASFA chief executive, Dr Martin Fahy, said: "Australian superannuation funds’ strategic asset allocation, including the significant allocation to unlisted investments, has been an important element in their outperformance compared to international peers.
"The changes announced today have the potential to mitigate investment distortions foreshadowed by the industry when the benchmark was first announced."
ASFA also welcomed the announcement that administration fees would be included in the performance test.
"Including all fees in the proposed benchmark will help align the benchmark to the reality of the returns members see in their superannuation, and help address any anomalies that different cost definitions might cause when comparing the performance of different products," Fahy 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.