Addressing a scheduled hearing of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee in Canberra yesterday, at which ASIC leadership appeared, NSW Nationals senator John Williams implored the corporate regulator to look into a new media venture, The New Daily, and its connection to industry super funds.
According to the online newswire’s website, the project is “backed by members of the Industry Super Funds network, including AustralianSuper, Cbus and Industry Super Holdings”.
Speaking to ifa following the committee session yesterday, Senator Williams said the investment may not be in the best interests of super members.
“This venture, I question what return this might have for members in terms of dividends,” Senator Williams said. “I wonder whether it may have a political agenda; there could well be a connection [to trade unions] which is why ASIC needs to look into it.”
Describing the service as a “competing newspaper with an agenda” rather than a service for fund members, Mr Williams said it was the corporate regulator’s role to assess the case in light of trustee obligations”.
“I believe ASIC deserves time to look at where superannuation members’ money is being invested and how a maximum return is going to be given to members,” he said, indicating he will be pursuing the matter with ASIC in the Senate Estimates hearings in early 2014.
In response to questions raised at the hearing, ASIC chairman Greg Medcraft said it is incumbent upon superannuation trustees to “justify their investment in line with their return obligations” to members.
PeterM, there are offerings that are cheaper than industry funds (you just can’t tell as they don’t disclose all costs like retail funds do), have much greater disclosure and transparency and aren’t run by union hacks.
BTW they DO have dedicated adviser lines, data feeds to your planning s/w, retain advisers on file (not punt them after 13 months thus needing another disclosure release signed by the client that takes THREE WEEKS to process). Fees CAN be paid from these accounts if the client elects it.
ISN’s are a joke, only worthwhile if just don’t give a damn about your super.
If Industry funds are so member oriented, why do they not allow the member to have advice billed to their a/c by a CFP. It is more cost & cash-flow effective. Are they not using law interpretation to give them a competitive edge to keep FUM & not be in best interest of client. Also why not have a dedicated line for financial planners so we can get to an informed reliable source without wasting time going through layers of limited informed staff. I have an industry fund & service is totally reactive, options limited but accept get what I pay.
JEFF ROSER –
If you are going to criticise, get your facts straight. Commissions are banned, and many advisers, such as myself, have not taken commissions from Super anytime as we have always been open and honest in our fee for service offering. Dinosaur industry funds and their defenders are INFERIOR offerings for so many reasons, and THAT is why we do not recommend them. Why can’t the industry funds inform their members via the annual report and internet about their offerings? Oh, because that would require their members to be engaged and care about their super. Something the industry funds cannot tolerate!
Jeff, I don’t know any advisers that take commissions from super funds. They have been banned anyway. You are living in the dark ages, blinded by industry fund advertising. By the way, retail funds offer cheaper alternatives to industry funds, and their service is superior. So perhaps Industry Funds should be informing the public of the benefits of NOT being a member.
If i get your drift what you are saying is Industry Funds should not be able to inform the public of the benefits of being a member.Denying the Australian workforce factual information is robbing them of the right to make an informed choice. Hope this position is not because Industry Funds will not pay commissions to planners for putting them into the fund
SO why not extend the Enquiry to the MILLIONS of dollars ISN have spend on TV & Print advertising slagging off at financial planners.
Apart from the obvious intention of discrediting the value of personalised advice (which is not in the best interests of members)I wonder how the ISN member fund trustees can reasonably justify this obscene expenditure in line with their return obligations to members.
Now that might have a few trustees lying awake at night – instead of just lying to their members during the day.
Transparency of industry fund expenditure would scare most members as to how much money was spent on financial planner attack advertising as well as “political attack advertising. Money that they should have received as part of their returns.
While they are at it, perhaps ASIC can investigate the motivation behind the Industry Super Funds decade long media campaign. Relentless primetime advertising which coninues today. How is that in their members best interest? I thought the additional scale was supposed to see a reduction in fees? Yet fees have increased. And what benefit is there in major sponsorships of football teams? How does this benefit the members?