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
Early release of super scammers cop prison time
Three people will go to prison after pleading guilty to defrauding the COVID-19 early release of superannuation scheme for $103,500.
Super funds slash external mandates by 54%
The number of investment managers winning institutional mandates has tanked 54% in less than two years as superannuation funds ramp up the in-house management of assets, Rainmaker Information research reveals.
ASIC tells super funds to 'step it up'
ASIC commissioner Simone Constant delivered a stern warning to super fund trustees.
Brookfield bids for majority stake in Neoen
Brookfield and its institutional partners have lobbed a bid to acquire a 53% majority stake in French renewable energy company Neoen.
Further Reading
Sponsored by | Know the facts about lifetime annuitiesSaving for a happy retirement is Australia's #1 financial goal. Learn how LifeIncome can deliver more income, certainty, & choice. |
Products
Featured Profile
Jason Huljich
JOINT CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
CENTURIA CAPITAL LIMITED
CENTURIA CAPITAL LIMITED
A single decision can change your life, and that's exactly what Centuria Capital joint chief executive Jason Huljich learned when he came to Australia in the 1990s. Eliza Bavin 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?