Remove barriers to infrastructure investment, says FSC
The Government must remove a number of structural, regulatory and political issues that must be resolved before the $1.3 trillion in superannuation saving can be utilised to finance Australia's infrastructure needs, according to the Financial Services Council (FSC).
Ernst & Young has produced a report for the FSC which argues that the current 5-10 per cent allocation to infrastructure in superannuation funds can be improved if certain barriers to investment are removed.
These obstacles include a lack of a clear project pipeline and Government commitment; a lack of suitably structured projects for institutional investment; inconsistent, complex and expensive bidding processes; and regulatory pressures.
"The Government took the first steps in removing the barriers to ongoing investment in infrastructure in the Federal Budget this year," said FSC chief executive Jon Brogden.
The FSC/Ernst & Young report said further investment could be stimulated by using the existing Infrastructure Australia priority project list to create a pipeline of Government-sponsored projects. Recycling Government capital in infrastructure assets more efficiently and simplifying the bidding process would also help, according to the report.
"However, let's be clear - superannuation is not a cash cow to fund particular economic ills in Australia. A fund's first duty is to its members and ensuring investment returns are maximised," Brogden said.
Recommended for you
ASIC has cancelled the AFSL of a Perth financial services firm following payments to its clients by the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort after a failed managed investment scheme.
Bravura chief executive Andrew Russell has announced he will be stepping down from the company, just under two years after his appointment.
Financial advice businesses with a younger, wealthier client base are enjoying higher valuations and increased attention from potential buyers than those with older clients.
A financial advice firm has been penalised $11 million in the Federal Court for providing ‘cookie cutter advice’ to its clients and breaching conflicted remuneration rules.
