Superannuation funds should start promoting non-super banking products to combat the banks' push into super, according to industry super fund executives.
Speaking at the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees marketing symposium, ME Bank general manager of marketing Aimee Suchard-Lowe warned that Westpac and NAB's aggressive cross-selling of existing clients into superannuation meant that the super funds had to begin pushing back by moving into non-super products.
Moving into banking products wasn't a defensive reaction, but a proactive move that aligns with the philosophy of helping members, she said.
Super funds could no longer remain competitive and relevant with just one single product on offer, said CareSuper general manager of marketing and client services Peter Theodorakopoulos.
"Members expect us to put more and more on the table for them," he said.
Offering non-superannuation products is a natural extension of where the industry was headed, Theodorakopoulos said.
The trust factor around certain super brands could allow them to stretch their brand into a whole of life discussion on their financial needs, Suchard-Lowe said.
But superannuation funds need to first find out if they can extend their brand beyond their core super proposition before they move into non-super products, she said.
Suchard-Lowe warned that any alignment with a bank has to be a solid joint venture proposition that is compelling for members.
Superannuation funds promoting non-super products shouldn't dilute their value proposition, Theodorakopoulos 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.