Super trustees need better vigilance: APRABY EMMA RAPAPORT | MONDAY, 27 MAR 2017 12:43PMAPRA'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
TCorp reorganises investment team
In pursuit of a new operating structure and "simpler portfolio environment", TCorp has created four new investment roles and will farewell its head of portfolio construction and head of portfolio delivery.
Major themes to watch in the ETF space
Speaking at the inaugural Future Investing Forum, experts shared their thoughts on what to expect from the ETF market over the next 12 months.
UK forewarns Australia on wholesale test changes
After recently backflipping on changing its high-net-worth investor (HNWI) tests, the UK serves as a cautionary tale for Australia as it mulls overhauling its own wholesale investor thresholds.
Jim Lamborn retires from JANA
Jim Lamborn has retired from the asset consultant after more than two decades on its leadership team.
Products
Featured Profile
Matt Gaden
HEAD OF AUSTRALIA
JANUS HENDERSON INVESTORS (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED
JANUS HENDERSON INVESTORS (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED
Helping investors traverse financial markets and build their wealth during the peaks and troughs is Janus Henderson Investors head of Australia Matt Gaden's game plan. He tells Karren Vergara why in this long game of investing, active management wins.
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?