With the superannuation industry facing structural change and increased regulatory scrutiny in the wake of the Productivity Commission’s report and the Royal Commission, AFRM Claims Advocacy (ACA) has warned that trustees will need to consider new ways of managing the quality of service they provide members.
The group flagged to the Productivity Commission’s eagerness to shine a light on outsourced service providers used by trustees to ensure members’ interests are always met as one potential change, as well as increased capacity and capability constraints on trustees from the compliance requirements of the new Insurance in Superannuation Voluntary Code of Practice.
ACA chief executive, Bruno Muraca, said that third parties could provide support to trustees through this process, as well as improve member experiences.
“Few could argue that the current climate of negative publicity around the sector has shaken members’ trust and in the instance of having to make a claim in this climate, it would not be surprising if more members seek legal advice to manage their claim to ensure their best interests are being met,” he said.
“But, of course, this means exorbitant costs for both members and trustees alike. The member benefits can be eroded by up to 40 per cent and legal fees could easily be $1500 per hour for the 10 to 15 hours it may take to manage a claim.”
Unsurprisingly, Muraca thought that ACA was well-placed to provide these services, pointing to the group’s experience with complementing insurers’ processes while also improving member outcomes.
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.