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
Former Income AM director launches fixed income advisory
A former Income Asset Management executive director has launched Ancora Fixed Income Advisory for high-net-worth clients targeting the defensive asset class.
TAL names super fund partnership lead
TAL has named a new partnership leader who will focus on its collaboration with a super fund, replacing Mel Jose, who left in August to join Netwealth after a two-year stint.
Capital Group expands into Middle East
Capital Group said the Middle East is a strategically important region for the business and its clients.
UniSuper says Firmus float was 'priced to perfection'
UniSuper chief investment officer John Pearce said the $175 billion super fund decided to not take part in the Firmus float, describing the neo-cloud company as "priced to perfection", before the initial public offering (IPO) was abandoned today.
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?