Super reporting standards need improvement

superannuation funds master trusts industry funds retail investors IFSA director mercer

15 August 2002
| By Jason |

INDUSTRY reporting standards fall short in providing fair comparisons in the area of superannuation funds, according to Chant West Financial Services director, Warren Chant.

Chant’s comments came as part of his presentation at the Investment and Financial Services Association (IFSA) conference where he said that IFSA standard 6S made it difficult to compare the performance and returns of corporate, industry and public offer superannuation funds.

The reason for this, according to Chant, is the reporting standard requires a deduction of fees, but this is usually at the maximum level, and since not everyone is charged fees at this level the end results are incorrect.

“Scale in many cases drives fees down so it is wrong to deduct full fee figures on many superannuation funds,” Chant says.

He also says that flat member fees, while simple to administer, are not being deducted from performance figures and thus would differ when compared with corporate master trusts.

This is an important issue, he says, since there are 12 million people involved with retail master trusts, 1.4 million in corporate super and seven million people involved with industry funds.

“Clearly there is a large group of people affected. Retail investors cannot compare fairly between the public offer funds and industry funds,” he says.

Another problem with reporting fees and performance figures is that most corporate and industry funds compare their returns with Mercer or Intech reports and surveys with a wholesale focus.

“Members see wholesale performance figures, but then pick up the retail media and see a different set of figures. Master trusts are not compared with those surveys, but they should be as performance of each of them is nothing without relativity,” Chant says.

He went on to say the costs of member protection in many funds is taken from returns, which is a hidden cost in those funds and in some cases even comes from earnings, which is also not disclosed.

“A better model that should be adopted across the board is not to deduct costs, including fees, before performance, which would allow for a full comparison of fees and performance figures,” he says.

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 1 week 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...

3 days 18 hours ago

Insignia Financial has confirmed it is considering a preliminary non-binding proposal received from a US private equity giant to acquire the firm. ...

3 weeks 6 days 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 2 days ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS