APRA

The employer-employee split worked well when not-for-profit funds were in their infancy. Today, in an era of member choice and the growing demands of retiree members, it’s a model that fails to cut the mustard.

If the regulator’s proposal to limit board tenure to 10 years takes effect, then many non-executive board members will be in the firing line, with industry funds likely to have the most casualties.

The boondoggle about superannuation marketing spend is mostly theatre, and does nothing to answer the question of what is really in members’ best financial interests.

APRA’s new superannuation expenses data – and the granular information it contains about donut and coffee purchases – begs the question: how much transparency is enough?

The Your Future, Your Super performance test is now redundant. The superannuation industry, and its regulators and policymakers, must figure out what comes next.

Bigger isn’t always better when it comes to member services. Megafunds might be able to mass customise, but when you’ve got two million members it’s tough to bring the personal touch.

A number of super funds managing less than $10 billion have been slugged with an increase in their restricted APRA levy of more than 80 per cent even as the regulator pushes them to keep costs down.

Few would disagree that a strong regulator is required for a strong superannuation system. But APRA’s myopic focus on cost to members means its $70,000 Christmas party is unlikely to help its reputation.

If or when there’s another royal commission into financial services, the profit-to-member and industry funds will not be able to say they weren’t warned about their problems. They were warned twice on Tuesday alone.

The prudential regulator wants to publish more granular details of how funds spend and invest their members’ money in an initiative it hopes will improve transparency in the $3.5 trillion super sector.