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
Super Members Council appoints inaugural chair
|The Super Members Council (SMC) will soon welcome Ann Sherry as its first chair.
Generation Development Group to take over Lonsec
|Lonsec Holdings will have a new parent company as Generation Development Group (GDG) is due to acquire the remaining stake in the research and ratings house.
Equip Super names chief experience officer
|Equip Super appointed its inaugural chief experience officer (CXO), previously at legalsuper.
APRA warns entities on adequacy of backup systems
|APRA has reminded its regulated entities of the need to remain vigilant when it comes to cyber resilience, identifying the use of data backups as a weak spot.
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?