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
Brookfield Oaktree to further democratise alternatives in Australia
Local investors will get access to Brookfield Oaktree Wealth Solutions' global private credit strategy later this year, with plans to launch it as a unit trust.
Retail funds drive down admin fees: KPMG
Expensive retail superannuation funds have finally become competitive with industry funds after bringing down their administration fees, a new analysis by KPMG shows.
DWS names APAC chief investment officer, real estate
DWS appointed Matthias Naumann as chief investment officer, real estate in Asia Pacific as a sign of its ambitions in the region.
Employees will quit on full return-to-office orders: Survey
Financial services professionals will threaten to quit if they are forced to go into the office five days a week, a Robert Walters survey finds.
Products
Featured Profile
Matt Gaden
HEAD OF AUSTRALIA
JANUS HENDERSON INVESTORS (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED
JANUS HENDERSON INVESTORS (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED
Helping investors traverse financial markets and build their wealth during the peaks and troughs is Janus Henderson Investors head of Australia Matt Gaden's game plan. He tells Karren Vergara why in this long game of investing, active management wins.
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?