When cash ain’t really cash

7 June 2018
| By Mike |
image
image
expand image

Are all “cash options” offered by superannuation funds the same?

The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) has revealed that its recent scrutiny suggests that one fund’s “cash” might be another fund’s non-cash investment option.

Facing questioning during Senate Estimates, APRA deputy chair, Helen Rowell acknowledged concern about the seemingly low returns generated by some funds but pointed to the wide variation in approach and descriptions pursued by superannuation funds.

She said the regulator was undertaking some work on the “various cash options and the composition of various cash options across the sector”.

“The work we have done so far highlights a couple of different issues. One is that some cash options seem to be returning much higher than we would expect from what you might call a pure cash option and there are others that are returning much less,” Rowell said.

“Our initial work seems to suggest that part of it goes to the types of instruments, if you like, which are in those. They are not just term deposits; they may be enhanced cash, RMBSs or other types of securities that are cash-like but not cash. And in other cases, it does come down to the level of expenses that are being charged for the management of those cash options.”

Rowell said these were all issues which had been identified by APRA and which were being pursued with the relevant funds where particular products had been identified as “outliers”.

Asked whether APRA’s current regulatory toolkit was appropriate and sufficient to deal with this issue, Rowell said the superannuation framework relied on trustees to set the investment strategy and set the fees and charges that applied.

“The focus of our member outcomes work and the proposals that the government has considered around enhancing member outcomes is really about pushing trustees to think a lot harder about some of those decisions,” she said.

“In that sense, I would say that there is room to strengthen the regulatory framework both in terms of putting tougher requirements on funds in terms of how they look at and assess member outcomes and what they are delivering at a fund, product and investment option level but also in terms of the reporting and disclosure and the information that is available that enables us and other stakeholders to get more visibility of these types of issues more quickly.”

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...

14 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...

15 hours 19 minutes 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....

20 hours 55 minutes ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND