Regulator vows to oust poor performing super funds

Super funds put on notice to enhance performance or quit the industry.

Noose tightens on super funds

The Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority (APRA) yesterday said it was confident that its package of superannuation reforms would pass muster even though the body has not begun formal consultations.

Speaking at the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) 2017 conference, APRA Deputy Chairman Helen Rowell expanded on proposed changes to the regulatory system that guides trustees.

“We will shortly release a consultation package outlining proposed revisions to the prudential framework, including changes to promote greater transparency, especially around expenditure, and implement member outcomes assessments for all funds,” Ms Rowell said.

Among APRA’s concerns is the large number of funds whose net cash flow ratio has deteriorated over the past three years.

Ms Rowell said another major worry was the fact that most funds have increased their administration and operating expenses since 2014, which she considered was a poor outcome for members.

“Consequently, the changes proposed in our upcoming consultation package are designed to put pressure on poor performers – irrespective of industry segment – to lift their game or, if the needed improvement is not possible within a reasonable timeframe, to gracefully exit the industry.”

An APRA spokesman told YourLifeChoices that it was fair to assume that the bulk of funds were underperforming in regards to costs and cash-flow compared with a few years ago. He added that the timing of when lacklustre funds would be asked to quit the industry would be determined on a case by case basis rather than with a blanket deadline.

Asked how likely it was that dozens of funds could be targeted by the regulator, the spokesman said it depended on the severity of the underperformance.

“We can’t give a checklist that we regard as being worse-case scenarios,” he said.

During the speech, Ms Rowell said the proposed revisions to APRA’s prudential framework were largely separate from the Federal Government’s proposed reforms.

The sector’s efficiency is also under review by the Productivity Commission and it expects to hand down its report next June, which is around the same time that APRA will detail its recommended reforms.

The regulator said it wanted to lift standards across the superannuation industry, which is expected to have $4 trillion under management by 2022.

Currently, the sector accounts for $2.5 trillion of assets. Australians’ nest eggs are managed thus:

  • 2.1 per cent by corporate funds;
  • 22.2 per cent by industry funds;
  • 17.0 per cent by public sector funds;
  • 23.4 per cent by retail funds; and
  • 27.7 per cent by self-managed super funds.

Ms Rowell said it was irrelevant which industry segment managed superannuation “as long as a fund is well-managed and delivering quality, value-for-money outcomes”.

APRA expects there will be mergers among super funds in coming years which will lead to fewer investment options.

“If we look at the composition of the industry five years ago, there were 51 industry funds, 179 retail funds, 40 public sector funds and 64 corporate funds. By comparison, in 2017 there are 40 industry funds, 126 retail funds, 37 public sector funds and 25 corporate funds – a loss of 106  funds overall,” she said.

“This has come about for various reasons, including unsustainable funds closing and transferring their members elsewhere, or funds voluntarily choosing to merge, pool their assets and resources, and hopefully gain the benefits of increased scale.”

Under the reforms, trustees identified as being unable to consistently deliver sound outcomes will be asked to review their operations and perhaps merge or transfer member savings to other funds.

“In some cases, (it) may require trustees to conclude they lack the scale or skills … and exit the industry – after all, the interests of members need to come before directors’ interests when there is a conflict.

 “The proposed directions power before the Parliament would allow APRA to enforce this in cases where trustees failed to see the writing on the wall.

“Our data … show the different challenges faced by smaller funds compared with larger funds, from generally lower returns, to higher operating costs and a general trend towards greater contraction of membership.’’

Ms Rowell also questioned the need for some funds to have an abundance of investment options, saying that this potentially added to administration costs without demonstrating enhanced value for members.

“In particular, might members be better off with a smaller number of options delivering appropriate risk/return outcomes and a reduction in both fees and fund administration costs? I suspect, in many instances, the answer to both questions is yes,” she said.

Opinion: Shonky super trustees don’t deserve ‘grace’

Yesterday’s warning from the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority (APRA) to sloppy superannuation fund trustees that they would be “pressured” to lift their game is great news.

But can we trust APRA to follow through on its words with effective and speedy action? The signs suggest not.

APRA Deputy Chairman Helen Rowell’s hard-hitting words may end up being just that …  words. She said that “if needed improvement is not possible within a reasonable timeframe, (underperforming funds should) gracefully exit the industry”. Why should they be given the option of “exiting gracefully”? Surely as a watchdog, APRA should order them to reform within a reasonable timeframe, certainly less than 12 months, and if they fail to, the authority should cancel their licence to operate forthwith. That is the only way to ensure members’ savings are protected from being further savaged by bad management.

If, as we suspect, the regulator is probably going to drag its heels, then tens of thousands of retirees will continue to be ripped off indefinitely by trustees who don’t know how, or worse, refuse to run a super business properly.

The admission by APRA yesterday that the bulk of superannuation funds are underperforming in terms of administration costs and cash-flow compared to 2014 was sobering. But its suggestion that it would not impose deadlines on the worst of the worst to reform was extraordinary.

Asked by YourLifeChoices to expand on this point, an APRA spokesman said deadlines were not envisaged. Instead, each shonky fund would be considered on a case-by-case basis.

SuperRatings Chief Executive Kirby Rappell also wondered out loud to YourLifeChoices “for how long will APRA be patient with those who failed to reform before they were asked to exit”.

“I think there are a couple of considerations here. For those funds where underperformance is evident, a timely process to reform or merge is required,” Mr Rappell said. “However, the process to merge a fund takes time and it is imperative that members’ benefits are preserved.

“Accordingly, it will take some time and the quality of the outcome will be paramount. However, it will be important that the funds that need to make change action this quickly.”

SuperRatings publishes information about the best-performing funds regularly. Perhaps it is time for a list of the worst-performing funds to also be published.

YourLifeChoices asked APRA for a list of the funds it considered to be in the sin bin, but without luck. They should be named and shamed. If not, then one has to ask: “Who is being shielded and why is APRA extending them protection?”

APRA is supposed to make sure that superannuation sector trustees do their job properly and not just issue a few sharp words from time to time. Unless the regulator acts swiftly, it will be seen to be on the side of shonky super trustees and not on the side of vulnerable retirees whose savings are being abused.

In conclusion, Mr Rappell could not have put it better: “To be successful into the future, funds need to be doing far more than just business as usual.

“It is the minority of funds who are not viable, but the expectations for all funds is increasing. While many funds have business plans in place, the proof will be in the outcomes that will take time to emerge. Holding all providers to account will ensure a healthy system into the future.”

Do you think your super fund charges excessive costs? Would you mind if your super fund merged with another? Do you trust your fund’s trustees to look after your interests?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    MICK
    30th Nov 2017
    11:25am
    The only question is will poorly performing Retail Funds be closed down or will this be the next attempt to cripple Industry Funds which have outperformed the former for decades?
    I mean you can't have a union represented fund that is doing well can you?
    Adrianus
    30th Nov 2017
    11:29am
    c'mon MICK?!! 20% of industry funds have fallen off the perch in the last 5 years. That doesn't happen if they're doing a great job.
    Who's paying for all the adverts depicting the foxes being let in to the little girls bedroom.???
    Tib
    30th Nov 2017
    12:03pm
    I agree Mick , we shall see.
    MICK
    30th Nov 2017
    1:10pm
    And the top ones are outperforming retail funds. Can't have that can we Frank.
    For the record I have not seen Herr Turnbull name industry funds doing poorly. He just brands them all as 'union run' failures. Put up or shut up Frank. Which funds have failed?
    On the other side of the ledger everyone knows that those who run retail funds make the lion's share of the moolah.
    Anonymous
    30th Nov 2017
    1:16pm
    The Lieberal vermin led by Turdball hate unions, unless it's the Bar Association.
    Rae
    30th Nov 2017
    1:36pm
    When Vanguard can run a fund with a 0.26% fee and some retail funds charge in excess of 3% there has to be a problem with returns averaging around 4.5% over 10 years.
    Adrianus
    30th Nov 2017
    5:29pm
    I'm not totally satisfied that the fees and charges are fully disclosed from retail or industry funds. For example, a fund's prospectus advertises a investment fund manager's fee as 1.5% pa. this is unchanged for several years. How can that be?? The fee is set. Not the actual costs.
    Old Geezer
    30th Nov 2017
    6:06pm
    There are lots of hidden fees too as everyone part of the food chain has to be paid before the person actually owning the super gets what's left.
    ex PS
    1st Dec 2017
    11:38am
    Super Funds are required to disclose fees as a percentage and $ figure on the annual statement, or at least that is what my Industry fund with a Union Rep sitting on the board does.
    A fund that has performed in the best top ten in the country for as long as I can remember.
    Do I want a government that can not even manage to run its own party interfering?
    NO BLOODY WAY.
    LiveItUp
    2nd Dec 2017
    7:50am
    Fees paid to others are expenses which are not shown as fees.
    ex PS
    5th Dec 2017
    10:16am
    As with the banks and any other business, what is your point?
    Adrianus
    5th Dec 2017
    10:34am
    The point is ex, expenses aint Fees and Fees aint expenses!!
    Adrianus
    30th Nov 2017
    11:26am
    Looking at those figures it would appear that Retail and industry Funds are losing out big time to Self Managed Funds. Australians are a resourceful lot.
    MICK
    30th Nov 2017
    1:11pm
    Wait until property crashes. Then Self Managed Funds will all be out the window because owners of these funds are gambling on property never going down and NOT hedging their bets.
    TREBOR
    30th Nov 2017
    3:50pm
    Try to maintain contact - SMFs are not at issue..... unless they are an abject failure.
    LiveItUp
    2nd Dec 2017
    7:55am
    Not many SMSFs have residential property in them.
    Adrianus
    3rd Dec 2017
    1:05pm
    True Bonny! MICK is desperately looking for a point of difference.
    floss
    30th Nov 2017
    11:31am
    Sounds great in theory and I hope it is carried out, time will tell.Lately we hear a lot of talk from Government and their agencies but little action.
    floss
    30th Nov 2017
    11:36am
    Frank I am more than happy with my Industry Fund , some people make SMF. work some fail badly and go back to Industry Funds.
    MICK
    30th Nov 2017
    1:12pm
    I have not spoken to anybody who is not floss and it looks like Frank is doing the work of this crooked government in promoting what nobody else wants.
    Old Geezer
    30th Nov 2017
    3:25pm
    I just got my SMSF accounts back and if my SMSF has failed badly then the rest must of completely sunk to the bottom.
    TREBOR
    30th Nov 2017
    3:51pm
    Some do, some don't Geezer - do try to keep up with the formation...
    Old Geezer
    30th Nov 2017
    4:11pm
    Trebor I'll never do that as that is what sets me apart form the rest.
    TREBOR
    30th Nov 2017
    4:23pm
    Then why discuss SMFs in the argument about managed funds?

    Sometimes you at least need to be in the same plane of existence.....
    Old Geezer
    30th Nov 2017
    6:04pm
    I thought I saw something about SMSFs being 27.7% of the super industry in the above article.

    Maybe I thought I saw a pussy cat too.
    TREBOR
    30th Nov 2017
    8:06pm
    I doubt that is the real figure, OG.
    Adrianus
    30th Nov 2017
    10:47pm
    Trebor you are hilarious lol. Why isn't anyone allowed to mention SMSF's? You are aware that this thread is all about superannuation and APRA's future intentions? SMSF's comprise 27.7% of the $ pool and account for 96% of all super funds. What do you have against self managed funds? Oh, you don't have one??? I'm sorry.
    TREBOR
    2nd Dec 2017
    12:22am
    Because they're talking about MANAGED FUNDS, Frank.

    Simple, really...

    What the hell are you talking about? Why would I have anything against self-managed funds, Frank?

    What do you imagine should happen with 'poorly performing' SMFs? They be absorbed by a big fish? If so, who, when, where, and why? And what happens to the SMF operator then - gets his/her money managed for a fee - meaning they will likely be worse off?

    Are you saying that Self-managed fund operators are incompetent?

    Watch your tongue.
    TREBOR
    2nd Dec 2017
    12:23am
    Because they're talking about MANAGED FUNDS, Frank.

    Simple, really...

    What the hell are you talking about? Why would I have anything against self-managed funds, Frank?

    What do you imagine should happen with 'poorly performing' SMFs? They be absorbed by a big fish? If so, who, when, where, and why? And what happens to the SMF operator then - gets his/her money managed for a fee - meaning they will likely be worse off?

    Are you saying that Self-managed fund operators are incompetent?

    Watch your tongue.
    TREBOR
    2nd Dec 2017
    12:23am
    Because they're talking about MANAGED FUNDS, Frank.

    Simple, really...

    What the hell are you talking about? Why would I have anything against self-managed funds, Frank?

    What do you imagine should happen with 'poorly performing' SMFs? They be absorbed by a big fish? If so, who, when, where, and why? And what happens to the SMF operator then - gets his/her money managed for a fee - meaning they will likely be worse off?

    Are you saying that Self-managed fund operators are incompetent?

    Watch your tongue.
    TREBOR
    2nd Dec 2017
    12:23am
    Because they're talking about MANAGED FUNDS, Frank.

    Simple, really...

    What the hell are you talking about? Why would I have anything against self-managed funds, Frank?

    What do you imagine should happen with 'poorly performing' SMFs? They be absorbed by a big fish? If so, who, when, where, and why? And what happens to the SMF operator then - gets his/her money managed for a fee - meaning they will likely be worse off?

    Are you saying that Self-managed fund operators are incompetent?

    Watch your tongue.
    cupoftea
    30th Nov 2017
    12:07pm
    I can join any super i want,but the government wants to tell me how to spend it after their friends have had their cut its a shame we cant tell them what to do with theirs which they can draw at any age and carry on work ask Hockey
    Tib
    30th Nov 2017
    12:12pm
    Sounds good to me provided its implemented fairly.
    rob101
    30th Nov 2017
    12:14pm
    My Fund LUCRF is brilliant! Minimum fees and great returns ! Keep the BANKS out of Super!
    KSS
    30th Nov 2017
    1:48pm
    FYI: Mr Turnbull has now called for a Royal Commission into the banks!
    TREBOR
    30th Nov 2017
    3:53pm
    ... and we await its composition and its outcomes with bated breath... if it's anything like the waste of money called the RC into Unions, all it will be is another nice little retirement earner for another old mate, with no valid outcomes other than the already rubber-stamped ideologically driven policy.

    30th Nov 2017
    12:56pm
    I wonder who will define "sloppy"? Will a track record be considered? Will an investigation into management be carried out? Will "sloppy" be classified as a low return? I love objective words where no grey areas can be found and, conversely, I abhor subjective words where the interpretation can be manipulated. By all means get rid of those super funds which are doing the wrong thing by the investors but have a list of what is required to define "sloppy".
    Tib
    30th Nov 2017
    1:05pm
    I'm sure they can define what poor business practice is. But I'm afraid it's probably a fifty page document a little long and involved to discussed here.
    MICK
    30th Nov 2017
    1:14pm
    "Sloppy" is how Turnbull referred to the Greens when their MPs were caught up in the citizenship debacle. A bad choice of words for which backfired badly on out Fuhrer.
    TREBOR
    30th Nov 2017
    3:55pm
    'Sloppy' will be the industry funds managed by that werewolf - the Unions..... bet on it... there will be hints and allegations, amounting to nothing substantial, of the massive amounts being funneled off for the benefit of Union cronies.... buying slave girls and such.... you know the drift by now.

    Heard it all before and it is still lies.
    Anonymous
    30th Nov 2017
    4:05pm
    I disagree TREBOR, industry funds are reported to be giving members a rate of returns well above other funds (I don't know about SMSF) and to deny them running a super fund will adversely affect members. If donating to a political party by union controlled super funds is a concern then there are legislative ways to circumvent that.
    TREBOR
    30th Nov 2017
    4:25pm
    I didn't STATE industry funds were performing poorly - I said they are likely to be defined by this star chamber as 'poor performers' for ideological reasons.
    Tib
    30th Nov 2017
    10:12pm
    I have my super in an industry fund, and it's doing very nicely . If you guys think it's all a conspiracy and you want to put your money in a retail fund. Hey I'm ok with that. I'll stay where I am. :)
    johnp
    30th Nov 2017
    1:08pm
    some good points made here. however it cannot be denied that industry funds generally perform the best for members. so all hands off them and leave them alone
    MICK
    30th Nov 2017
    1:14pm
    Yes!
    Old Geezer
    30th Nov 2017
    2:32pm
    Industry funds are not preforming well for those with small balances or with casual work.
    Rae
    30th Nov 2017
    2:55pm
    Is anything performing well for low income and casual workers now? I suggest Fair Work Commission is anything but fair and the attack on wages and salaries begun in 1970 is reaching a crisis point.

    What goes around comes around and the deliberate refusal to share productivity and profits with workers and government policies of austerity always ends up affecting everyone.

    When business people start noticing their cash flows falling it will be too late unfortunately.
    TREBOR
    30th Nov 2017
    3:56pm
    Got it, Rae - Geezer - go back to sleep on this one.
    Anonymous
    30th Nov 2017
    4:15pm
    Rae, I disagree most strongly with your suggestion that businesses share profits with workers. The share that workers get is the wage that they have negotiated. What if a business went to the workers and told them that they had made a loss for the year and wanted the workers to pay a part of their wage to give the business a profit. That's the other side of that coin.
    Rae
    30th Nov 2017
    4:37pm
    Yes indeed Old Man but the share of productivity given in wages started falling in 1970. That is nearly 50 years now of wages share decreasing.

    Businesses aren't sharing and good on them. However when the interest rates rise and all those workers can no longer afford to spend in those businesses it will be over for them as well. Their profits will collapse.

    Many will survive if the product is an essential or an export.

    The Fair Work Commission negotiates wages down.

    Good for the short term and short term gain by business to be sure.

    When business begins making losses they will sack the workers and the whole will get worse.

    It happens over and over. I don't blame business from taking a lions share but they can't complain when the money go round stops either.
    TREBOR
    30th Nov 2017
    6:03pm
    (**slave sitting at the conqueror's feet on the chariot in the triumph**)...

    Don't forget over-mechanisation.... don't forget over-mechanisation...

    What happens to markets when there are only 10% employed to produce goods? Do they become free hand-outs to all or do their prices fall to break even if lucky?

    30th Nov 2017
    1:14pm
    The whole super industry is a byzantine SCAM.
    MICK
    30th Nov 2017
    1:17pm
    It is well known that both sides of politics want a cut of the action and the current lot want to incorporate rate it into the pension system.
    Of late big business is now lining up for its cut and wants the super money pile to finance startups.

    For those stuck in the super system you need to begin worrying. It is not 'if' but rather when they come for YOUR money.
    Rae
    30th Nov 2017
    1:32pm
    I'm not the least surprised.

    That 2015 budget was always going to have huge consequences for superannuation plans.
    Anyone with brains would have ceased extra contributions and many encouraged to draw down and spend excess amounts to ensure they receive government part pensions and concessions.
    In a low tax, no wage rise situation extra contributions make little sense.

    The fixed formula has picked up gains in various investment options and then lost them again due to the inability to rebalance efficiently.

    As to the trustees I'm no longer sure I do trust them or know who they actually are any longer. The trustee on my fund was privatised recently and damned if I can find out who or what is overseeing the fund these days.

    If we suddenly have a fierce market correction how many funds will go under and how many will lose their lives savings I wonder.
    Old Geezer
    30th Nov 2017
    2:31pm
    There is actually one group of people that it makes sense for them to contribute more to super as it saves them a lot of tax.
    Rae
    30th Nov 2017
    2:49pm
    Yes OG but high income earners are few compared to the huge numbers that superannuation does not suit now due largely to the 2015 legislation changes. The LNP would have been better off leaving it alone rather than silly austerity measures that do nothing in a sovereign fiscal situation except pull money out of the communities.

    High income earners don't need the part pension and concession card as they get the tax concessions but that is not so for the majority earning the median wage or less.

    Those are the people pulling funds out of super or not contributing extra because in the long run it will cost them. Low income does not mean stupid and Rainey explained the consequences very well in the past.

    Cash flows were always going to suffer and this is due to ideologically driven Government policy. It has taken three years to show up but I expect an escalation as retirements roll on and decisions to draw down and spend to get extra government pensions continue.

    You can of course cancel the concession card as you suggest except for full pensions which will encourage millions to spend down or not save to get under the cut off for full pension. Not sure I'd suggest that unless the destruction of the superannuation system was the main plan.

    Seeing it was Labor set up super it wouldn't surprise me as warring against Labor seems to be having awfully stupid consequences.
    Old Geezer
    30th Nov 2017
    3:26pm
    No Rae they are not high income earners but those who have retired before they have reached age pension age and have incomes where they are above the minimum tax threshold.
    Old Geezer
    30th Nov 2017
    2:26pm
    The likes of Rest, Hostplus etc must be bought into line as anyone doing casual work with small balances is having all their super taken up in fees with funds like these now asking them to contribute their own money so that they keep their life insurance etc.

    Super funds should not be allowed to take any more out in fees and insurance premiums than their funds earn especially for those with small balances.

    Anyone that has $200 or less I am currently advising to take it out instead.
    Rae
    30th Nov 2017
    2:38pm
    I'm surprised those with small balances don't cancel insurance. i have a current accumulation fund and cancelled the insurances years ago as I don't need the insurance.

    If you do the math a person really needs at least $80 000 plus a year income for superannuation to be of any benefit at all even over 45 years.

    Low income earners need their whole income these days to cover rents and living costs. If they can afford to save a bit then that simply makes life easier when the washing machine dies or the car needs repairs. Maybe even to have a holiday once a year.

    Earning very little, struggling with living for decades to end up with a few tens of thousands that won't last any time at all is unfair to the median earner and below in my opinion.

    They are also paying that 15% tax when higher income earners receive concessions.
    Anonymous
    30th Nov 2017
    3:09pm
    That's where the system is wrong, Rae. High income earners get huge tax concessions to build a super balance way beyond what they need, and the lower income earners struggle to get by on what's left after the super contribution reduces their take-home wage (and it does, regardless of who actually pays it!) but get no tax concessions at all. In some cases, low income earners pay more tax on their super contributions than they would if they kept it as wages. And these concessions are costing the nation more than the aged pension, but it
    the pensioners who are attacked.

    Of course OG's answer to this is that if you scrap the concessions, people won't invest in super. In other words, the high income earners are greedy and selfish and willing to see the country go to ruin rather than give up a little of their excess savings, while low income earners are wrongly cursed, blamed and bashed just for wanting the system to be fairer. Who is it wasting on first class trips to Disneyland, OG? The fat cats ripping off the nation to build huge superannuation balances using unfair tax concessions - NOT the battling working class or very moderate income earners whose frugal ways SHOULD have enabled them to comfortable and secure in retirement.
    TREBOR
    30th Nov 2017
    4:22pm
    (*roll me 'Long Ago', Igor - strike up the band).....

    Hence the Trebor Principle of Long Ago And Many Times Stated, of accounts under a certain amount NOT being charged fees etc.

    I can assure you it is painful to watch your one summer's work going to waste to feed some arsehole you've never met, while they hang on to your miserable super balance and take it to the cleaners.

    DisGraceful!
    Tib
    30th Nov 2017
    10:32pm
    If that's $200000 ok but if it's $200 ...who cares take it out and buy a couple of beers but drink slowly you only have a few.
    ex PS
    1st Dec 2017
    11:52am
    Never thought I would agree with O.G. but I guess today is the day. People need to remember, you can put your money into any Super Scheme you choose, you may not be able to take your money and run, but you sure can transfer it to another scheme.
    TREBOR
    30th Nov 2017
    3:49pm
    Watch for the clods in the silver lining.... .. they'll define 'poor performing funds' as those their mates don't hold a death grip on..... whereas we all know that industry funds outperform the financial institution ones.... by a country mile.
    ex PS
    1st Dec 2017
    11:57am
    The day they are given that sort of power is the day we book a suite on the Queen Mary and just sail around the world until the money runs out.
    If I am going to waste money I will waste it on myself, not on propping up some shinny arsed bankers lifestyle.
    ex PS
    1st Dec 2017
    11:48am
    The report itself makes the statement that it is irrelevant what sector manages funds, as long as it is well managed.
    So the only benchmark should be performance and fees as represented as a percentage of profit. Of course if no profit is shown that is what should be paid in fees, what ever percentage disclosed multiplied by zero.
    Frank, good to see you state that 80% of Industry Funds are doing OK, good to see that you can recognize a good thing when you see it. Is the Financial Sector doing as well with its'Super packages?
    MD
    3rd Dec 2017
    10:46am
    And it was government that introduced the mandated and guaranteed imposition on employers binding them to contributions on behalf of employees, at the time it seemed like a good idea. Indeed it was - to those insiders forewarned and well prepared for plucking this golden goose being fattened for them by their brethren in government.
    Those same insiders were literally tripping over each other setting themselves up for the windfall of govt guaranteed 'contributions'. Since time immemorial (my experience limited to ~fifty years) anything of a fiscal nature involving govt control or oversight has predominately been exploited by userers, money grubbers, sharks and bludgers. Exceptions being either groups or individuals whose social conscience is justified by their proposed contribution for the good of their fellow man.
    At the outset of compulsory super the speed with which opportunistic people formed groups, keen to establish themselves as trustees of existing or infant schemes gave some indication of how much a good thing they anticipated by setting themselves up for a lifetime sinecure. Thus, in the interim we've witnessed varying degrees of fake charges, skimming, and 'services' (in various forms) whereby fees have eroded the balance of member account's. The degree with which this rorting grew over the course of a couple of decades has, in some instances culminated in the total erosion of some number of accounts. Where does this leave the individual and their expectation of a comfortable retirement - at the mercy of the govt and Human Services?
    Any number of folk played the game by establishment rules and lost (in varying degrees); meanwhile the Funds, their employees, shareholders and industry 'consultants' have prospered: politicians and public sector employees likewise.
    Arcane terms such as TRUST, LOYALTY and RESPECT seem to play ever diminishing roles in government instituted dealings with the result a public becoming increasingly baffled by an equally increasing number of super changes. Blame for the degree to which this Industry problem has developed can in no way be directed at members - mere pawns in this game - (the blame) lies directly in the court of Industry Principals, Politicians and policy advisers. It is their responsibility to sort the rort as best they, both morally and ethically can apply.
    Am I naive to think most folk would consider this indicative of LEADERSHIP ?