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
The top investment funds over the past year
The top-performing investment funds for the year ending March 31 have been announced, with all being ETFs focused on international equities.
AFCA finds more Dixon Advisory victims
The Australian Financial Complaints Authority added 544 more Dixon Advisory-specific victims to total 2492 complaints at the end of April, which will further exacerbate the levy financial advisers must pay.
Senior Cbus investment manager exits
Cbus' head of total portfolio management has left the fund, while a former JANA executive has joined its infrastructure team.
Quality of retirement does not depend on super balance: Bragg
The Senate Economics Committee has released its interim report into using super for housing.
Products
Featured Profile
Robert De Dominicis
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
GBST HOLDINGS LIMITED
GBST HOLDINGS LIMITED
It was during a family sojourn to the seaside town of Pescara, Italy, Rob DeDominicis first laid eyes on what would become the harbinger of his future. Andrew McKean 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?