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
HESTA lowers investment fees
|HESTA has dropped investment fees and costs across most of its core investment options.
BT adds to C-suite with new role
|BT has appointed an inaugural chief product officer - digital, hiring from Macquarie.
Janus Henderson completes Rantum Capital acquisition
|Janus Henderson has completed its acquisition of German private markets manager Rantum Capital after receiving the necessary regulatory approvals, expanding its private credit and private equity capabilities across Europe.
Super fund-backed Atmos raises near $3bn
|Atmos Renewables, an Australian subsidiary of Igneo Infrastructure Partners and is co-invested by local super funds like Cbus, MLC and AMP Super, has raised a combined $2.9 billion for two energy projects that account for almost one gigawatt of renewable capacity.
Further Reading
Products
Featured Profile

Cliff Man
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ETF SHARES MANAGEMENT LTD
ETF SHARES MANAGEMENT LTD
ETF Shares chief executive Cliff Man spent his career automating, building and challenging established systems. Now, he is betting that Australia's ETF market has room for something different. Vinny Vucago 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?