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
Praemium's new leadership toughens earnings yardstick
Praemium's new leadership will be keeping a close eye on costs, with new chief executive Denis Orrock noting he will make sure the technology upgrade underway translates into stronger earnings and better returns for shareholders.
Australian Ethical FUM drops by $70m
Australian Ethical saw a net outflow of $100 million in its investment business in the first quarter of the financial year.
Perennial expands wholesale offer for pre-IPOs
Perennial Partners is launching a new strategy for wholesale investors to capitalise on global pre-IPO opportunities, requiring a minimum investment of $100,000.
Macquarie wealth investment chief to depart
Macquarie chief investment officer for wealth will take on a new role at a New Zealand-based investment management firm after serving in the position for close to three years.
Further Reading
Products
Featured Profile

David Sharpe
CHAIRMAN
FINANCIAL ADVICE ASSOCIATION AUSTRALIA
FINANCIAL ADVICE ASSOCIATION AUSTRALIA
A family man, business owner, cricket fanatic and financial adviser, David Sharpe has many facets. One of his biggest legacies, as he steps down as chair of the Financial Advice Association Australia, is leaving the profession stronger than he found it.








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?