ISA urges government to keep super safety netBY ALEX BURKE | FRIDAY, 24 APR 2015 12:40PMIndustry Super Australia has called for the super safety net to be retained, arguing that scrapping it would collectively cost employers $1.8 billion. Related News |
Editor's Choice
Is demand for active ETPs genuine beyond outlier conversions?
As the active exchange-traded product (ETP) market continues to grow, new Rainmaker Information research asks whether demand has genuinely improved or if it is underpinned by conversions from three investment managers delivering "three exceptional months of work"?
Schroders nabs Lazard's Australian portfolio manager
Aaron Binsted will join Schroders Australia in early November as a portfolio manager and analyst after 24 years at Lazard Asset Management.
IFM targets growth opportunities with new global office
IFM Investors has opened its first office in Singapore to capture growth opportunities in a region "under allocated" by institutional investors.
HNWIs demand outperforming, mission-driven endowment funds
High-net-worth investors' (HNWIs) increasing demand for philanthropy vehicles with robust governance, a clear mission and can outperform in equal measure is helping fuel the rise of endowment funds such as the Aspect Impact Fund.
Further Reading
Products
Featured Profile
Sarah Shaw
GLOBAL PORTFOLIO MANAGER
4D INFRASTRUCTURE
4D INFRASTRUCTURE
It wasn't confidence that prompted Sarah Shaw to walk away from established investment houses and co-found 4D Infrastructure in 2015. It was something she believes is far more important: courage.







The fact that it is referred to as a safety net is half the problem - it should be called what it is, red tape and an anti-competitive loophole.
"More than eight million Australians don't choose their own super fund and rely on their employer to place them in a high performing fund. These funds are selected in a merit-based process overseen by the Fair Work Commission," said the ISA chief executive.
Are you kidding me? Under what basis are employers making judgement calls on "a high performing fund"? And under what basis is that employer responsible if the expectation on performance is not achieved?
Does this mean that employers are assuming that past performance is an indicator of future performance?
What a load of rubbish. It's all about the unions, nothing else.
Now, pardon me but I just have to get to my Corporate Box at the MCG tonight as a guest of an industry super fund ....run only to profit members don't forget.
This regime is anti-competitive and not in the best interests of consumers. ISA has the attitude that "big brother knows best". ISA should have to compete in the open market and not be provided with a tied stream of members. Let's see how they perform when it is a level playing field.