In a statement, Prime Super announced that the funds were in “advanced stages of discussions” to create a merged fund with $5 billion assets under management and 120,000 members.
Prime Super has $3.7 billion funds under management while Combined Super services the not-for-profit sector and has almost $1 billion funds under management.
Combined Super chairman George Kogios said the proposed fund merger would see greater scale delivered for members while maintaining member engagement.
“The synergies between Prime Super and Combined Super are strong and we see the ability to continue that small fund level of personal engagement as a strong positive for our members,” Mr Kogios said.
“The additional scale of Prime Super will allow us to demonstrate a real reduction in the cost of superannuation for our members.”
Prime Super chairman Alan Bowman added that a key consideration for the merger was the similarities in culture and vision for the industry between the two super funds.
“The merger would provide Prime Super with increased scale, whilst remaining a fund that is focused on delivering a quality product to members and the right level of services to contributing employers across a broad range of industries,” Mr Bowman said.
Should the merger – which is pending “satisfactory due diligence” – move ahead, some directors from Combined Super will be appointed to Prime Super’s board, the statement said.
The announcement of the potential merger came on the same day that Sunsuper and AustSafe Super announced they will be merging.
Investment performance can’t be taken into account if we have new funds, said every industry fund provider ….
But they still manage to outperform retail funds….
What funds? You mean the “balanced funds” with 83% growth assets with 9% of the funds internally valued compared to 50/50 funds?
Industry Funds have had a more stable base of customers for a lot longer than retail funds. Clients with no choice of changing super funds because there employment agreement said they will only pay into that fund “insert industry fund” they were able to invest into more unlisted investment without risk of major churn of people leaving which has given them an unfair advantage investing in longer term investments.
Also they put up ads which show a balanced fund which isn’t 50/50 Growth its more like 80 to 90 Growth and then compare a retail fund on a balanced fund which is normal 50/50 then claim they have better returns. I’m sure if you looked in a retail fund that has 300 or more investment options and cherry pick investment managers you could shows better returns and move the numbers into retail funds favor as well.
The fact is they have less compliance, less competition for years. talk about vertical integration and yet have their own bank which is an industry fund bank their own close shop advisers and closed shop insurance companies with Sh*t policies, I wonder where the industry funds refer their clients for a loan. ME bank.
they crack on about Banks only recommending their own products like its a crime but ok for industry funds to do the same.
Don’t forget, in addition to the above, some industry funds also classify some Property as ‘Defensive’ income!