Are member best interests compromised by vertical integration?

14 August 2018
| By Mike |
image
image
expand image

The ability of vertically integrated institutions to run superannuation funds has been brought into question by the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services industry.

The Royal Commission has closely examined the relationship between financial services companies and their related superannuation funds in the context of both IOOF Limited and National Australia Bank/MLC Limited.

In the case of IOOF Limited, the Royal Commission questioned IOOF managing director, Christopher Kelaher on differences of opinion between the company and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) on the appropriate separation of the trustee and the responsible entity.

In the case of NAB/MLC the Royal Commission posed similar questions with respect to trustee of the MLC superannuation funds, NULIS, and its handling of members’ interests with respect to fee for no service.

In the case of IOOF, the Royal Commission questioned the status of IOOF Investment Management Limited and its role as both a Registrable Superannuation Entity (RSE) and a Responsible Entity (RE).

At the heart of the examination of Kelaher was the manner in which IOOF had sought to rectify an over-distribution out of the Questor superannuation product and the use of fund reserves to compensate affected members rather than company funds.

Specifically asked by Commissioner, Kenneth Hayne the status of the fund general reserve, Kelaher said he believed it was not an asset of the fund members.

In the case of NAB/MLC, the former chair of the MLC Superannuation trustee, NULIS, Nicole Smith, acknowledged that the trustee board of the fund had sanctioned the grandfathering of adviser commissions as part of a successor fund transfer for fear of advisers taking their clients elsewhere.

“We thought there was the potential for an attrition risk if we removed grandfathered commissions,” she said.

“I think we thought that the risks called out were real and that in the context of the timing of the successor fund transfer it was appropriate to grandfather commission,” Smith said.

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Add new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Recommended for you

sidebar subscription

Never miss the latest developments in Super Review! Anytime, Anywhere!

Grant Banner

From my perspective, 40- 50% of people are likely going to be deeply unhappy about how long they actually live. ...

4 months ago
Kevin Gorman

Super director remuneration ...

4 months 1 week ago
Anthony Asher

No doubt true, but most of it is still because over 45’s have been upgrading their houses with 30 year mortgages. Money ...

4 months 1 week ago

The property group, owned by industry super fund Aware Super, has announced two new projects with a total construction value of $320 million that will add more than 700 h...

9 hours ago

A member of the super fund has approached ASIC to investigate potentially misleading or deceptive representations by UniSuper regarding the holdings of its sustainable po...

10 hours ago

The median growth fund delivered 1.9 per cent in March, adding to the “stunning” rally that has seen super funds gain 11 per cent since November....

16 hours ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND