Super funds take lead on First Home Saver
Pauline Vamos
Superannuation funds could become primary providers of the Government’s new First Home Saver Accounts, according to key industry body the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA).
Commenting on a discussion paper dealing with the new accounts, ASFA chief executive Pauline Vamos said superannuation funds were well-placed to offer such accounts due to their robust investment returns, efficient administration and sound governance practices.
She said ASFA believed that properly designed First Home Saver Accounts would complement traditional retirement savings in circumstances where access to owner-occupied housing formed an integral part of a person’s standard of living in retirement.
Vamos said that for First Home Saver Accounts to be attractive to both superannuation funds and first home buyers, it would be important that costs were minimised, that government contributions were made promptly and that the scheme was easily understood by potential users.
The chief executive of the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees (AIST), Fiona Reynolds, supported superannuation funds offering the new accounts but said a great deal of work remained to be done, including having caps on fees and charges and separating out commissions-based selling arrangements.
The AIST is expected to canvass its members to gain a comprehensive industry picture of the new accounts and how they should be used.
AUTHOR
Mike Taylor
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.
