The trustee directors of hard-pressed hospitality industry fund, Hostplus earned an average of $118,000 in the year to 30 June, this year, while its counterparts at Aware Super (formerly First State Super) earned an average of $100,000.
That is the bottom line of new data published by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority which reveals that relatively small funds such as NESS Super were paying their trustee directors $37,000 in the period while Australia’s largest superannuation fund, AustralianSuper paid its 23 trustee directors an average of $72,000.
HostPlus and AustralianSuper were among the funds hardest hit by outflows generated by the Federal Government’s hardship early release superannuation regime.
However, industry executives were quick to point out that the salary levels published by APRA needed to be viewed in the context of being an average in circumstances where most trustee board chairs earned substantially more than directors, and where some directors received higher remuneration due to their membership of various fund committees.
The following funds had the distinction of paying their trustee directors an average fee of on or over $100,000:
NetWealth Investments Limited $238,000
Nulis Nominees $228,000
BT Funds Management $122,000
HostPlus $118,000
Suncorp Portfolio Services $116,000
SunSuper $105,000
Macquarie Investment Management $103,000
Aware Super $100,000
MTAA Super $100,000
The executives also pointed out that, in some cases, the trustee directors were full-time executives with their remuneration reflecting that fact.
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.