Superannuation funds are unlikely to be able to meet the deadline for implementing some of the Government’s key legislative changes to superannuation, which were pushed through the Senate last week.
Major consultancy KPMG has warned the 1 July, 2019 implementation time-frame for the changes may be out of the reach of many superannuation funds.
KPMG partner, superannuation advisory, Adam Gee said that while amendments to the legislation made it more palatable the implementation timeframe of 1 July was unlikely to be achievable given the requirement for funds to communicate material changes to members at least 90 days before the changes occurred.
“We would prefer to see a reasonable timeframe for funds to implement the changes to ensure affected members are fully aware of the impact of the changes on their arrangements,” he said.
KPMG also warned that other changes contained in the bill, surrounding the automatic transfer of small accounts to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) and the capping of fees for small accounts were likely to place significant pressure on fund sustainability, given the impact they would have on revenue models particularly for those with large inactive and small account membership bases.
“Unless funds are able to find material administrative cost savings or other operational efficiencies, fees for remaining members could increase longer term as a result,” Gee said.
The lower outlook for inflation has set the stage for another two rate cuts over the first half of 2026, according to Westpac.
With private asset valuations emerging as a key concern for both regulators and the broader market, Apollo Global Management has called on the corporate regulator to issue clear principles on valuation practices, including guidance on the disclosures it expects from market participants.
Institutional asset owners are largely rethinking their exposure to the US, with private markets increasingly being viewed as a strategic investment allocation, new research has shown.
Australia’s corporate regulator has been told it must quickly modernise its oversight of private markets, after being caught off guard by the complexity, size, and opacity of the asset class now dominating institutional portfolios.
The irony is, by forcing superfunds and administrators to rush these changes through the subsequent negative impacts to members will far outweigh the benefits that the legn was trying to achieve. How can a fund argue they are acting in the best interests of members when they have not been given adequate time to redesign their products?
If they are unable to adapt to the changes, then successor fund transfer your members to a fund that can. Surely members best interest trumps all other considerations!