The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) has said daily unit pricing and short-termism could be the outcome of proposals in the draft regulations for superannuation fund rollovers and contributions.
Industry bodies in submissions to Treasury have taken aim at the three-day performance standard and have cited numerous clarity issues surrounding the exposure draft regulations for rollovers and contributions.
ASFA said the measures specifically targeted members in existing default funds – and in the future MySuper members – and failed to recognise existing and long-standing arrangements for forward unit-pricing.
The measures could drive the industry towards a daily unit pricing process and encourage short-termism in investment decisions, according to ASFA.
Members may be unfairly punished for the constraints of trustees' investment choices for MySuper products, it said.
ASFA argued that the same time-frame should apply for default and MySuper members as those who had made an investment choice: 30 days in which to complete the transfer, with an emphasis on timeliness.
The Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees (AIST) said it supported the three-day performance standard, but said further exceptions should be permitted by the regulator including migration of data for a merging fund, or during a file-build following the annual reporting season.
The exposure draft regulations should be amended to allow trustees who had written permission from APRA to suspend allocation of amounts transferred or rolled over for a limited period for a specific purpose, it said.
AIST also took issue with the lack of a standard form, which it said might confuse members with multiple accounts in different funds and might discourage the transfer or rollover.
ASFA also supported separate internet protocol addresses for each unique superannuation identifier for processing contributions and rollovers via the Australian Taxation Office's employer register.
Both ASFA and AIST made numerous suggestions about amending the wording of the exposure draft regulations, saying they lacked consistency and did not adequately clarify a range of issues and processes.
