Hostplus CEO David Elia appeared before the royal commission yesterday and was asked about the marketing expenditure of his fund’s administration reserve.
The reserve, which Mr Elia said currently stands at approximately $170 million, receives the $78 annual administration fee of Hostplus’ 1.1 million members.
“The funds are used for marketing, administration, salaries, office overheads, and other operating expenses,” he said.
Counsel assisting Eloise Dias asked Mr Elia about the fund’s marketing budget – specifically, corporate entertainment.
She noted that Hostplus, like other superannuation funds, was asked by the royal commission to produce “certain credit card statements”.
“Does Hostplus host employers and other stakeholders each year by taking them to the Australian Open?” Ms Dias asked.
“That is correct,” said Mr Elia, noting it is “probably our flagship corporate event” and that in 2018 Hostplus invited 120 employers who accounted for approximately $4 billion in funds under management and about 160,000 members.
Hostplus spent $260,000 on corporate packages at the 2018 Australian Open, he said.
“It’s a great way certainly from my perspective and the executive team’s perspective to establish very, very early on and retain the relationships that are absolutely critical in terms of retaining the default fund status of our members and, therefore, retaining the members,” Mr Elia said.
Ms Dias asked why, given the superior returns Hostplus has delivered over the years, “employers need to be entertained in this way” to choose or retain Hostplus as their default super option.
“Our competitors are doing exactly the same thing. In fact, they are there, whether it’s the retail funds, whether it’s, you know, a number of other industry funds. Different organisations will do different things in order to hold on to those relationships,” Mr Elia said.
Ms Dias asked Mr Elia if it “concerned him” that he “had to do this to retain members”.
“It does. And I wish I didn’t have to do it, but the reality is is that it is a competitive landscape that we’re dealing with,” Mr Elia said.
“I don’t like the fact that we lose default fund status or lose employers to other competitors, to poorer performing funds, high fee paying funds.”
Commissioner Hayne intervened to observe that the premise of Mr Elia’s comments was that “performance is not enough to sell”.
“If it was a rational market, I think Hostplus would be – should be – 10 times the size of AMP. Should be 10 times the size of any of our competitor funds,” Mr Elia said.
“It’s just illogical to think how underperforming funds, high-cost funds, continue to grow at the expense of high performing funds. So there are other factors at play.”
Hostplus also spent $40,000 on tickets to Etihad Stadium in April 2018, which Mr Elia said were mostly used to reward the fund’s call centre staff.
In addition, the senior management of Hostplus were treated to a dinner at the high-end Melbourne Chinese restaurant Flower Drum in December 2017.
“If I wish to do something special for [my staff] to make them feel special, to effectively retain their loyalty, you know, to the fund then I fundamentally believe that our members are better for it,” Mr Elia said.
The royal commission heard that APRA had expressed concerns about Hostplus’ $260,000 expenditure on the Australian Open after being alerted to it by a whistleblower.
The whistleblower also said Mr Elia took his wife and family to the Australian Open each year, and benefited from Qantas Frequent Flyer points on his corporate Amex card.
Mr Elia defended taking his family to the tennis on the basis there were cancellations and that corporate packages were a “sunk cost”.
He also said his corporate Amex card has since been changed to a ME Bank card, which does not accrue Frequent Flyer points.
Asked whether Hostplus could reduce its marketing budget if it achieved greater scale through mergers, Mr Elia revealed the fund is currently in merger discussions with a smaller fund.
The hearings continue this morning.
You can follow all of the action at the royal commission hearings at ifa sister title InvestorDaily’s live blog: https://www.investordaily.com.au/superannuation/43410-royal-commission-superannuation-hearings




ISA’s next advert should be.
We don’t pay Adviser commissions.
But we pay big money to employers to wine, dine and entertain them at leading Australian sporting events to provide monetary enducement so they then use Industry Super for their employees.
All employers should have to disclose ALL their incentive rewards they receive from he Industry Super fund they recommend.
ISA must be forced to disclose that they provide financial incentives and perks to employers.
It’s effectiey a sales commission that is undisclosed.
Fair go RC.
I doubt it though as ASIC love ISA
[quote=Anonymous]Corn cob….
Bernie didn’t work for an industry fund, he worked on the (ahem) other side.
Not one of you’re best posts, was it?[/quote]
There’s just no helping some people. If you sell on performance, you will eventually get burned.
Street talk is Elia’s corporate credit card statement contained far more damaging expenses. Why did the commission not explore this further and what about the chairman of their board who approved his expenditure until internal staff alerted him to the fact it was wrong. As for Sicilia and all the CIO’s at industry funds, far from being international leaders in investment management, perhaps some basic txt books that explain the difference between, stable, balanced and growth funds. Start being true to label. You have contributed to one of the biggest scams perpetrated on Australians. If all investment managers remained true to label it would make it easier for Australians to understand and compare performance.
We all know that Industry funds have been getting away with murder for years, no biggie … but here they are getting a ‘bye’ from the RC. I cannot believe that they are been so ‘softly, softly’ with these Industry funds. When are we going to have ASIC take the stand, surly their lack of conviction should be scrutinis ed – as it appears there seems to be a lot of criminal behavior happening
ISA’s Fees for no service – RC please review – how do all members get to pay for the Intra Fund Advice services, yet i guestimate over 90% of members do not use this conflicted Intra Fund Advice service but they certainly pay for it.
[b]Why are the ISA members who use this Intra Fund Advice service not billed directly ? [/b]
MTAA anyone? Why does this stuff get missed by the RC?
https://cuffelinks.com.au/when-good-defensive-investments-bad/
[quote=Anonymous]Industry funds in general also have a higher level of ”direct” assets, usually with good yield that are valued annually (not daily).
Out of the mouths of babes. This is the exact reason people need to be careful with Industry Funds – they decide for themselves what their unlisted assets are worth. Never heard of unlisted property funds have you? Gee, they went well in the last property correction. Good luck.
They wen’t better than those who’d been to a Storm adviser, an AIOFP adviser flogging Trio Capital, besides MTAA no other industry funds had liquidity issues. How many retail funds were ”closed, had liquidity issues during the GFC? Remember the mortgage funds / bond funds?
I can keep going Cotton Eye if you want the history lesson to continue (and I’m working on the assumption that other readers on here, and yourself, don’t want that!)
Let’s wait and see how well they perform during the next correction shall we. Balanced funds with 90 odd percent in growth assets will sure do well.
Yes, let’s wait. All retail funds let’s wait, and wait, and wait… (like we always have, and always will…)
Flying the flag of performance is a dangerous game. We’ll see where the ISA ends up with that strategy.
Yes corn cob joe, let’s wait as usual… all retail funds let’s wait, and wait, and wait… (like we always have, and always will…)
Can someone intelligent with a minor grasp of industry history please take over, this is too easy…
“Performance” was the basic pitch that Bernie Madoff used. Worked for a while…
Corn cob….
Bernie didn’t work for an industry fund, he worked on the (ahem) other side.
Not one of you’re best posts, was it?
Well actually, there was the NSW Bookmakers super fund which fell into a heap after investing heavily in Citi Pacific and other fixed income type assets. Unisuper had a freeze on switching or commutations i think when they ran out of money due to poor markets. I think QSuper even had a freeze on switches for awhile…could be wrong. Their only saving grace was employer compulsory contributions.
Incorrect on all counts. The UniSuper defined benefit scheme was underfunded post GFC due to a poor set-up where employers were told of specific arrangements pre-setup. Remediation plan in place saw no employers pay more then required and VBI re-established quickly. This was not a liquidity issue. Next…
Ok, so the UniSuper DBS wasn’t a mess post GFC because it was “underfunded”? Nice work. I guess that’s ok then if it just needed a bailout from the “employers” (which in this case is the government).
Corn cob,
The rectification plan did not have a government ”bail out” at all. It required the employers (universities) to pay the SG rate for DB members (as per their initial requirements when UniSuper took over the defined benefit schemes) and meant that it would take a longer than twelve month period (it took circa 2 years) to get the DB scheme to appropriate funding levels.
There was certainly a few company defined benefit schemes (some administered by retail providers, some with their own trustee boards) who became under funded due to the CFC and either had to have stump up the funds, or as most did, put in a rectification plan over a few years.
You appear to be making it up as you go along due to low knowledge of the subject matter, ever thought of becoming a retail superannuation trustee (or a financial planner)?
Don’t make me pull out my client Uni super correspondence that stated their income payments would decrease due to this “poor set-up”. They were in trouble.
“UNISUPER has acknowledged that its defined benefit superannuation fund is no longer prepared to pay all the benefits promised to members when they were forced to join this fund. Its latest chief executive, Kevin O’Sullivan, has indicated that a name change, including “target benefit” rather than “defined benefit”, will be considered. For younger members with many years of employment ahead, and nearly 7000 non-commutable lifetime pensioners, a more suitable description could well be “uncertain benefits” scheme”. (The Australian, Sept 28, 2013)
Five year old press clipping, that’s so funny. How about you check the current facts (like when a financial planner sends away an Authority to Access Information expecting to get five year old information?)
Imagine the conversation with the client and how much more stupid you’d look than you usually do, this ”will be (the) considered” conversation after the client makes a mistake, ”Sorry compliance person, I thought five year information was fine to go with?”. ”Will (this) be considered if I can still stay at Dover?
Go on, pull you’re client out of the UniSuper defined benefit scheme. I dare you. You’re indemnity provider doesn’t dare you.
Speak to your UniSuper client about it, let them spread it amongst the staff that the financial planner (with their such strong credibility in the community right now) wants me to leave the defined benefit scheme!
Go on do it!
For the rest of you, here are the current facts:
https://www.unisuper.com.au/new-to-unisuper/unisuper-products/defined-benefit-division
Industry funds have had it a lot easier, as they have a lot less to hide and a way less conflicted. Maybe union members on retail provider trustee boards will assist in raising concerns quicker, the ”professionals” on retail boards have now shown to be at best, lazy, more likely conflicted and not up to it!
A lot less to hide! haha – mate they don’t release details to anyone. Opaque. Tell me what business a Union Member has being on a Superannuation board?
Let’s face it, with the lower fees and better returns, maybe the industry funds got it right from the start with their trustee board make up, with both employers reps and union reps together. Both groups are good at asking questions of each other and both represent their constituents pretty well. Add in a few independent trustees, very happy days (now, and well into the future…)
Retail funds? ”Independent (ahem…) trustees” appointed by the company to sit along side company employees, with the ”Independent (ahem…) trustees” worried about their potential board exten$ion to keep $erving on the board, but with no resources to ask questions? I’m hoping you are starting to understand. This is why they are spending so much time in the Royal Commission witness stand.
Have you seen the performance of the retail trustees at the Royal Commission, It’s keystone cops at best. Not good now (not good for their decreasing future).
Thursday’s hearings will be even funnier.
Told you Thursday’s hearings would be even funnier. Poor old AMP super trustee board, looked like an old rubber stamp for AMP Capital and AMP Financial Services whims and fee desires, not their for members best interest.
If that’s ”independent” then industry fund boards must be best of breed and something for retail providers to aspire to.
Add four or five union leaders to retail super boards, investment performance will most likely improve, or a least be properly examined and questioned.
Who’s disappointed that the super Royal Commission hearings end today?
Amazing how they didnt get questioned on how their ‘balanced’ fund is 90% growth assets (once you correct that they call property and infrastructure ‘defensive’).
Interesting the industry funds are getting the Royal Commission “B” team. Where is Rowena Orr ? is it the intent of the commission to give industry funds a free ride ? MMMMM ? No doubt the banks and retail funds being more deeply scrutinised. It was interesting that the QC didn’t pick up fact that Hostplus is misleading the public about administration costs. Its states it has low costs ? It stated it keeps benefits from insurance arrangements to cover admin costs, but I don’t believe it adds these costs to the admin costs in its disclosure statements. Customers kept in the dark about retention of their tax benefits and true administration costs. Big miss by the commission, perhaps a more balanced approach and same quality people on all funds my uncover so much more. last week energy super talked about BDM’s going on site to discuss insurance and consolidating super. I assume they are all qualified to give advice ?
What about their spend on Sports Teams, race cars etc. That would cost a fortune.
Just had a quick look at HOST plus latest PDS , now include the extra’s fee upfront in the easy to see fee section ( unlike CBUS hiding the extra 0.37% on page 328 ). For $50,000 invested in their default super balanced fund ,the fees are now a whopping 1.6% !! lets compare the pair now going forward !!!!same product but fees up 30% !!!!
Plus the $78 member fee? If so, half their members will be paying 1.3% member fee plus 1.6% ICR. Is that 2.9%? In the best interest of members they should roll them to a retail fund with no flat $ fee and an ICR of 0.8%. But that would reduce the fund income by 670,000 members x $78 = $52,260,000
The very same fund that gave $7million to a Union over the last 10 years. We don’t pay commissions to financial advisers but we pay monies to Unions and spend money on advertising. It’s the same thing.
Secondly Hostplus is the most $@#@ fund out there. There administration is terrible. Are these not the guys that outsource admin to a certain European Country? There misleading and deceptive performance is like comparing Apples to Bananas. Why wasn’t the question asked what is a “balanced” Fund.
So you didn’t get any tickets? Is this what you’re trying to say?
No you goose… I’m trying to say they’re both as bad as each other. One is possibly worse given they took the holier than thou high road and claimed they exist solely to benefit members yet clearly they their paying commissions by another name. Where have you been?
Where have i been?
“I’ve been everywhere man, around this conflicted industry man
I’ve seen conflicted ”independent’ trustees on retail funds not being able to question those who gave them their roles…
I’ve seen the witnesses at the Royal Commissions who evidence is full of holes…
I’ve seen retail providers who can’t comply with basic MySuper legislation…
I’ve seen financial planning firms not complying with fee for services laws because they can’t fully digest them…
I’ve seen companies not sure of how to comprehend conflicted inbuilt advice fees
I’ve seen CEOs, Chairpersons and senior executives resign and flee…
I’ve seen financial self-interest back by moron comment…
I’ve seen the average voter look at this industry and want to vomit…
I’ve seen the fear in the Turnbull’s government eyes…
I’ve seen the recent by-election results and Turnbull know’s his government will certainly soon surely die…
I’ve seen independent advisory firms praise industry funds for their low fees and great returns …
I’ve seen the other sector with clients burn (see Storm, Trio Capital, AMP, CBA, et al)…
So before you ask where I’ve been…
Let me ask you, where have you been and what have you seen?…”
You have just been owned… drop mic…
Except that when the Industry funds performances all tank, because of the overweight allocation to growth assets at the wrong time, then where will you be?
Industry funds in general also have a higher level of ”direct” assets, usually with good yield that are valued annually (not daily). Hence the ”tank” lessons compared to retail funds.
Let’s face it, industry funds have all but won the war as it has been revealed to all that they are less conflicted, better performing, better managed and better priced.
Thanks for commenting Mr Shorten
My pleasure soon to be unemployed and bankrupt lowly educated financial planner.
you one sided comments show you have a lot to learn. Plus I stand by my comments. You’re a goose.
Where have I been?
“I’ve been everywhere man, around this conflicted industry man
I’ve seen conflicted ”independent’ trustees on retail funds not being able to question those who gave them their roles…
I’ve seen the witnesses at the Royal Commissions who evidence is full of holes…
I’ve seen retail providers who can’t comply with basic MySuper legislation…
I’ve seen financial planning firms not complying with fee for services laws because they can’t fully digest them…
I’ve seen companies not sure of how to comprehend conflicted inbuilt advice fees
I’ve seen CEOs, Chairpersons and senior executives having to resign and flee…
I’ve seen Dover come and go… perhaps because I’m not slow and in the know…
I’ve seen financial self-interest back by moronic comment…
I’ve seen the average voter look at this industry and want to vomit…
I’ve seen the fear in the Turnbull’s government eyes… and after the recent by-election his government will certainly soon surely die…
I’ve seen independent advisory firms praise industry funds for their low fees and great returns …
I’ve seen the other sector with their clients burn (see Storm, Trio Capital, AMP, CBA, et al)…
So before you ask where I’ve been…
Let me ask you, where have you been and what have you seen?…”
You have just been owned… drop mic…
You forgot to mention the epic fails of Industry Super funds, administration so bad you wouldn’t touch them regardless of how they performed.
What is also alarming is the passive questioning of the industry funds that have appeared to date by the Counsel assisting the RC. I had the pleasure of viewing the video stream of the HostPlus CEO and witnessed him effectively provide a full sales spill on the benefits of his fund and how well they perform etc, without any interruption from the Royal Commissioner or Counsel assisting. I appreciate the RC have a job to do, but the level of bias being shown towards Industry Funds and non bank affiliated funds and passive questioning is very concerning and hints at a hidden agenda that the media are obviously not interested at looking into!
Agree. Why is the RC being so gentle here? Whilst they are witnesses giving evidence, why are Silk and Elia allowed to tout the performance of Industry funds?
Yes the line of questioning has been gentle. I think this might be because Aus Super and HostPlus simply admitted what they were doing and now the commission can whack them.
Aus Super/Host+/MLC etc paid money (ISH advertising/entertainment and tennis / commissions) to a third party (Unions/employers/advisers) for the purpose of attracting and retaining members in their funds which is prohibited under SIS.
Industry funds actually admitted this so case closed. They say that paying third parties to attract and maintain membership is in the members best interests to maintain critical mass and economies of scale. So i’d assume MLC will say the same thing.
The determination will either be OK I accept that is in the best interest and all funds splash the cash to increase members or it will be stopped. But all funds should be on the same page from now on.
The interesting question would have been why they say the fund is low fees when they have around 670,000 members with less than $6,000 in their accounts. At best, the $78 member fee is 1.3% plus investment ICR. That’s not low cost.
That Hostplus Index Balanced fund has been performing extremely well and is basically the cheapest super option available to the public.
Invest websites like the Barefoot Investor, rave about it, and they are highly intelligent well educated folk, not just becoming PS146 compliant last week.
I’ve just checked the Hostplus PDS dated 1 July 18 and it makes for some very interesting reading. First things first – asset allocation. According to the PDS (page 5 if anyone is interested) – the Balanced Fund has 76% in growth assets and 24% in defensive assets. But hang on a minute – they have included Infrastructure as 5% and property as 9% under DEFENSIVE assets. WTF?!!! Since when has infrastructure OR property EVER been considered as a defensive asset? Now I have a business degree, a masters in finance and I’m a CFA charter holder (if you don’t know what a Chartered Financial Analyst is – look it up. Pay particular attention to the extreme difficulty in obtaining this pre nom). In all my studies – infrastructure and property have always been considered GROWTH assets – the variability of returns from these assets is substantially higher than the variability from cash and fixed interest assets. So, Hostplus – your Balanced fund is definitely not true to label. I would go so far as to say that this is deliberate deceptive and misleading advertising. If you have a fund with 90% in Growth assets – this should be labelled as a HIGH GROWTH fund NOT Balanced. Second point – FEES. let’s have a look at that PDS again (pages 5 and 6). According to Anonymous “Hostplus Index Balanced fund has been performing extremely well and is basically the cheapest super option available to the public”. WRONG AGAIN!!! According to the PDS – if you have $50,000 invested in the Hostplus Balanced option your fees will be $803 pa. Obviously maths is not your strong point so I’ve worked it our for you – $803 divided by $50,000 equals 1.606% PA!!!!!!! That makes Hostplus one of the MOST EXPENSIVE super funds available to the public. So good luck with your Barefoot Investor – who by the way is NOT on the Financial Adviser Register.
Barefoot Investor can read a PDS though. If you had read the PDS all the way through you would know they have the default Balanced option and they also have the Indexed Balanced Option. The Index Balanced Option has a Management Fee of 0.02% and ICR of 0.04%. Therefore making the fees for $50,000 investment $108 or 0.22%.
I totally agree with you about the asset allocation though. The amount of shocked faces I see on clients when we explain how we characterise certain asset classes and how aggressive we believe they are invested compared to how the industry fund classes them as.
Yes I agree the Balanced Index is low cost (excluding the $78 fee which on an account balance of $6,000 is 1.3%) Remember almost 700,000 members (so half their fund) has a balance below $6,000 so how can they claim it’s low cost?
Plus, when people hear others ‘recommend’ they use Host+ they set up an account and Host+ set them up in the default. That’s the balanced fund and has a fee of 1.6% (See below). I’ll add it up for you. 1.3 + 1.6 = 2.9%
These members see the word balanced on their statement and no ICR so assume they are in the low cost fund.
Perhaps Host+ should make the Balanced Index fund the default.