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

This verdict highlights something deeply wrong and rotten at the heart of the FSCP. We are witnessing a heavy-handed, op...

12 hours ago

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

4 days 17 hours ago

It’s astonishing to see the FAAA now pushing for more advisers by courting "career changers" and international recruits,...

3 weeks 2 days ago

Insignia Financial has made four appointments, including three who have joined from TAL, to lead strategy and innovation in its retirement solutions for the MLC brand....

2 weeks 4 days ago

A former Brisbane financial adviser has been charged with 26 counts of dishonest conduct regarding a failure to disclose he would receive substantial commission payments ...

3 days 15 hours ago

Pinnacle Investment Management has announced it will acquire strategic interests in two international fund managers for $142 million....

2 days 18 hours ago