Super funds are using legacy systems to broaden investment options while SuperStream is barely getting a look-in, according to Bravura global head of product Darren Stevens.
Funds had expanded investment options to include direct equities and terms deposits in a bid to stem the flow of self-managed super funds (SMSFs), he said, while Cbus recently opened up direct property investment to members.
Investing in technology to comply with SuperStream had largely fallen behind the demands of MySuper, said ePASS product manager Mark Thomas.
Although funds were aware they would have to act, the issue was bigger than they thought and involved a whole host of workflow considerations, he said.
"We'll ask the question 'do you want us to come in and talk about SuperStream?' and they just haven't been responsive, because they've been so entrenched with MySuper.
"I think they're coming out the back end of that now and that date for SuperStream's looming large, so they're engaging with us on that," he said.
MySuper regulations were at the forefront of trustees' minds and technology was taking a back seat, at least for the moment, Stevens said. The technology infrastructure being implemented was not scaleable.
"My biggest concern and fear with that is what I'm seeing in the market is a lot of spaghetti code and spaghetti systems - where they're getting a system here that has to bolt to this system that has to bolt to this system. On the outside (it looks fine) but underneath it it's a real mish-mash of technologies," 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.