Super trustees need better vigilance: APRABY EMMA RAPAPORT | MONDAY, 27 MAR 2017 12:43PM![]() APRA's deputy chair Helen Rowell hit out at superannuation trustees who incur "inappropriate expenditures" saying that unnecessary costs negatively affect outcomes for members. Related News |
Editor's Choice
Superannuation assets inch to nearly $4.8tn
Total superannuation assets hit nearly $4.8 trillion in the last financial year, marking a 9% rise, namely driven by the rise of industry funds.
Australian instos inject $705m into Nuveen strategy
Brighter Super and JANA are among a group of Australian institutional investors who have injected $705 million into Nuveen's Arcmont Asset Management European direct lending strategy.
Macquarie names new wrap platform lead
Macquarie has appointed a new head of wrap platform after Michelle Weber stepped down from the role following a 13-year tenure at the company.
Invesco APAC head to retire
Invesco Asia Pacific chief Andrew Lo will retire from the global asset manager next March after 32 years with the firm, closing out more than three decades spent building its presence and partnerships across the region.
Further Reading
Products
Featured Profile

Liza McDonald
HEAD OF RESPONSIBLE INVESTMENT
AWARE SUPER
AWARE SUPER
Liza McDonald would have you believe her path from a legal secretary to the head of responsible investment at Aware Super was a matter of good fortune. Her career says otherwise. Riddhima Talwani writes.








The issue I see is APRA's interpretation of what makes a person independent because each person will have a past history which will influence their decision-making processes. We all carry some baggage from our past whether we come from the employer or employee side, so can anyone be truly independent?
Surely it should be about what skills and abilities a person has rather than are they are 'independent'. By adding independent trustees to the board aren't we just adding to the cost, yet APRA also say that's a major issue? So which is it?
The decision to merge or close a fund should sit with the members and in fact it does. If a member is unhappy they can move to another Fund or is APRA saying members do not understand?
If that's the case why not spend money educating Australians of their rights instead of lecturing funds that they should make the decision without even consulting their members?