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
Frontier awards custody mandate for ICIO offering
|Frontier Advisors has awarded a custody and administration mandate for its independent chief investment officer offering to the Australian market.
Alexander Funds names new chief executive
|Alexander Funds has named a new chief executive, hiring from Australian Unity and set to take on the role September 7.
Soul Patts to pocket $1.89bn from Brickworks divestment
|Washington H. Soul Pattinson & Co is set to receive $1.89 billion after agreeing to divest its stake in Brickworks' industrial joint venture property trusts to Goodman Group, freeing up capital for future investment opportunities.
ASIC expands list of super lead generation entities
|ASIC has names 19 additional entities involved in superannuation lead generation activities as part of an ongoing review into business models that may encourage consumers to switch super funds unnecessarily or inappropriately.
Products
Featured Profile

Brian Redican
CHIEF ECONOMIST
NEW SOUTH WALES TREASURY CORPORATION
NEW SOUTH WALES TREASURY CORPORATION
What makes an economist an economist? TCorp chief economist Brian Redican reflects on over three decades of navigating Australia's economic cycles. Riddhima Talwani 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?