Winners and Losers - 2005
Choice of superannuation fund
Winners - Those funds which concentrated on retaining members in circumstances where the latest data suggests a churn rate of only 7 per cent of superannuation fund members following the implementation of choice, with many people simply opting to consolidate two or three superannuation accounts into a single fund.
Losers - Those funds, both existing and new-comers, which expended vast amounts of money promoting their offering only to learn that the churn rate was around 7 per cent.
Politics
Winners - The Federal Government which oversaw the implementation of its choice of superannuation fund regime at the same time as finding enough money in its coffers to expand the co-contribution regime and eliminate the surcharge.
Losers - The Federal Opposition. The Australian Labor Party may have been the author of Australia’s superannuation guarantee system but it virtually absented itself from the superannuation debate throughout 2005.
-------------------------------------------------
Policy development
Winners - The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia for accurately highlighting some of the shortcomings in the Federal Government’s legislative proposals.
The Investment and Financial Services Association for retaining the ear of Government - something which contributed to the expansion of the co-contribution regime and the elimination of the surcharge.
Losers — Self-managed superannuation funds for failing to gain further traction with either the Government or the regulators.
-------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Winners - The retail master trusts for emerging virtually unscathed through the trustee licensing process.
The regulators themselves for implementing a difficult new regime without wearing too much adverse feed-back.
Losers - The myriad of funds which have yet to secure their Registrable Superannuation Entity license
The industry superannuation funds who were forced to amend choice of fund advertising because of a still-disputed interpretation of the sole purpose test.
Investment performance
Winners - Most superannuation fund members who enjoyed yet another year of double-digit returns.
Losers - Those asset consultants who believed that domestic equities would finally run out of puff and discovered that they did not.
Boldest
Winners - The executive chair of Industry Fund Services, Garry Weaven, for getting onto the front foot in the choice of superannuation fund debate and then taking Industry Funds Management into new territory with respect to acquisitions.
Losers - Those very few financial planners picked up as part of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission’s monitoring of post-choice superannuation transfers.
Conferences
Winners - Investment and Financial Services Association for choosing Brisbane in mid-winter.
Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia for best content.
Losers - Conference of Major Superannuation Funds. Hobart is picturesque but struggled to handle this major conference.
AUTHOR
Mike Taylor
Recommended for you
Join us for a special episode of Relative Return Unplugged as hosts Maja Garaca Djurdjevic and Keith Ford are joined by shadow financial services minister Luke Howarth to discuss the Coalition’s goals for financial advice.
In this special episode of Relative Return Unplugged, we are sharing a discussion between Momentum Media’s Steve Kuper, Major General (Ret’d) Marcus Thompson and AMP chief economist Shane Oliver on the latest economic data and what it means for Australia’s economy and national security.
In this episode of Relative Return Unplugged, co-hosts Maja Garaca Djurdjevic and Keith Ford break down some of the legislation that passed during the government’s last-minute guillotine motion, including the measures to restructure the Reserve Bank into a two-board system.
In this episode of Relative Return Unplugged, co-hosts Maja Garaca Djurdjevic and Keith Ford are joined by Money Management editor Laura Dew to dissect some of the submissions that industry stakeholders have made to the Senate’s Dixon Advisory inquiry.
