Super funds don’t want to cross-subsidise planning fails

superannuation policy finance

30 June 2017
| By Mike |
image
image
expand image

The superannuation industry has made clear it does not want to cross-subsidise bad behaviour in other sectors of the financial services industry such as financial planning by being forced to help fund a compensation scheme of last resort.

One of the largest superannuation industry representative bodies, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) has told the Government it believes the existing compensation arrangements applying to the superannuation industry are adequate and it sees no purpose in supporting a last resort arrangement.

It has made clear its opposition in circumstances where a Treasury position paper has pointed to the financial advice sector being the most heavily exposed to claim, citing the largest categories for unpaid Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) determination as being disputes relating to the provision of financial product advice, disputes with operators of managed investment schemes and disputes with credit providers.

In a submission filed with the Treasury, ASFA said it considered the current regime in Part 23 of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 to be “an appropriate and effective means of providing compensation for losses due to fraud or theft within the APRA-regulated superannuation sector”.

It went on to say that it saw “no benefit in displacing Part 23 in favour of a generic compensation scheme of last resort”.

The ASFA submission said the organisation did not “support any proposed industry-wide compensation scheme that has the potential to involve cross-subsidisation by the APRA-regulated superannuation sector of losses incurred within other sectors”.

“Whilst sympathetic to the plight of consumers who have been unable to obtain redress for past disputes, ASFA has significant reservations about the proposal to introduce a scheme for redress,” it said.

The ASFA submission then went on to outline some of its concerns, including the difficulties of adequately addressing issues of moral hazard, the inappropriateness of subjecting providers, particularly trustees of APRA-regulated superannuation funds, to unquantifiable and potentially open-ended liability in respect of past disputes, and the need for all stakeholders to have certainty, with clear timeframes and criteria applying to the resolution of financial system disputes, which mitigates against special rules for past disputes.

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 3 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 3 weeks ago

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

2 months 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 5 days ago

Original bidder Bain Capital, which saw its first offer rejected in December, has returned with a revised bid for Insignia Financial....

5 days 18 hours ago

A relevant provider has received a written direction from the Financial Services and Credit Panel after a superannuation rollover resulted in tax bill of over $200,000 fo...

4 weeks 1 day ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS