Baby steps for industry on truth in fund labels

superannuation funds financial services council association of superannuation funds australian prudential regulation authority ASFA australian securities and investments commission FSC

4 November 2010
| By Lucinda Beaman |

A leading superannuation body has responded to industry calls for regulatory intervention in investment labelling and promotion by claiming industry-wide agreement on the issue is close.

The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) pointed to a working group being run in participation with the Financial Services Council (FSC) as one example of the industry “working collaboratively to improve disclosure”.

ASFA chief Pauline Vamos said the ASFA/FSC ‘risk modelling’ working group would form the foundation for funds to be compared on a “risk-rated” basis. Vamos said the work was expected to be finished by the end of this year and would then be considered by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA).

But the focus of that working group is narrow: it is responding specifically to APRA’s request earlier this year that funds find a way to model and communicate investment risk over 20-year periods. Vamos said it was “high time the terms used to describe the risk of investment to consumers are defined and applied for consumers across funds”.

“But we know the names mean nothing unless they are risk-rated. This working group is finally going to achieve an industry-wide agreement on this issue.”

But Vamos acknowledged the working group was only addressing “one piece of the puzzle”, and that the “big picture” issue of fund managers and super funds being true to label where investment options are concerned is not being discussed in that forum.

Vamos said while those discussions had been held by industry in the past, they had stalled.

“[The industry] started down the growth/defensive definition route — but that proved too difficult at that time. I think we’ll have to go back to that.

“There’s still a lot of work to do but this [the working group] is a great little first step, a toe in the water,” Vamos said.

“Let’s get the risk buckets first and then go the next step.”

The debate about fund labelling continues despite the fact that the Corporations Act defines a ‘balanced investment option’ as one in which “the ratio of investment in growth assets, such as shares or property, to investment in defensive assets, such as cash or bonds, is as close as practicable to 70:30” (Corporations Regulations 2001, Schedule 10).

But as Vamos and others acknowledge, the difficulty is in defining the characteristics of growth and defensive assets, when assets such as property, for example, could fall into either camp.

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

MARKET INSIGHTS

Completely agree Peter. The definition of 'significant change is circumstances relevant to the scope of the advice' is s...

1 month 2 weeks ago

This verdict highlights something deeply wrong and rotten at the heart of the FSCP. We are witnessing a heavy-handed, op...

1 month 2 weeks ago

Interesting. Would be good to know the details of the StrategyOne deal....

1 month 3 weeks ago

SuperRatings has shared the median estimated return for balanced superannuation funds for the calendar year 2024, finding the year achieved “strong and consistent positiv...

1 week ago

Six of the seven listed financial advice licensees have reported positive share price growth in 2024, with AMP and Insignia successfully reversing earlier losses. ...

3 weeks 5 days ago

Specialist wealth platform provider Mason Stevens has become the latest target of an acquisition as it enters a binding agreement with a leading Sydney-based private equi...

3 weeks 4 days ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS