Did APRA miss super failings because of poor data?

APRA/AIST/ATO/

29 January 2019
| By Mike |
image
image
expand image

The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) could have identified problems with respect to under-performing superannuation funds sooner if it had actually gathered and analysed the appropriate data, according to industry funds representative group, the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees (AIST).

The AIST also urged the establishment of a cross-agency taskforce between APRA and the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) to ensure that the overall performance of self-managed superannuation funds (SMSFs) can be better compared with that of APRA-regulated funds.

The AIST even questioned whether APRA sufficiently understands the data provided by superannuation funds in circumstances where funds and their custodians have had to re-lodge information over multiple periods.

In a submission responding to APRA’s Post-implementation Review of the Prudential Framework for Superannuation, the AIST urged the APRA to bring members’ best interest into the equation where prudential and reporting standards are concerned.

It said the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services sector had highlighted many cases where members’ best interests were not the applied test with APRA presently using measures which focus specifically upon providers in the industry and whether consumers have incurred losses.

The submission said the measures currently utilised by APRA may be inappropriate because they fail to capture the cost of choice superannuation product compared to MySuper products.

It said that APRA needed a comprehensive data reporting framework and that in the absence of such data there was insufficient information to assess the performance of the superannuation system.

The AIST submission said that APRA had made many comments about the need to improve the accessibility, consistency and reliability of information that was reported to the regulator, but that there continued to be inconsistent reporting on investment costs across funds with some funds not reporting all costs embedded in investment returns (rather than reflected in disclosed fees).

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

MARKET INSIGHTS

So we are now underwriting criminal scams?...

2 months ago

Glad to see the back of you Steve. You made financial more expensive, not more affordable as you claim, and presided ...

2 months ago

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

4 months 1 week ago

A Sydney financial adviser has been permanently banned from providing any financial services, with the regulator deriding his “lack of integrity, trustworthiness and prof...

3 weeks 1 day ago

Minister for Financial Services, Stephen Jones, has provided further information about the second tranche of the Delivering Better Financial Outcomes (DBFO) reforms....

2 weeks ago

One licensee has lost 27 advisers in the past week, now sitting at zero, according to the latest Wealth Data figures....

3 weeks 1 day ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS