Australian royal commission final report

Australia’s superannuation trustees will be forced to lift their game, their roles will be restricted to avoid conflict and they will be hit with civil penalties for failing to act in the best interests of members.

The much-awaited final report for the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry  was released publicly on Monday afternoon.

Australia’s superannuation assets totalled A$2.8 trillion at the end of September 2018 and is the fourth biggest market for pension assets globally (after the US, UK and Japan).The royal commission, which kicked off in March and ran across 68 days of hearings and more than 10,000 public submissions, looked into bad practices in the superannuation, banking and insurance sectors.

The final report, by Commissioner Kenneth Hayne, made three key recommendations aimed at elevating the role of superannuation trustees. Hayne made 10 recommendations relating to financial advice and seven relating to superannuation.

Trustees should be prohibited from “assuming any obligations other than those” related to being the trustee of the fund, and be banned from “treating” employers in order to have their fund nominated as a default fund under a new civil penalty provision.

Further, the Hayne Commission also recommended trustees should be prohibited from hawking super products, should not be allowed to deduct advice fees from a MySuper account and should be limited from deducting fees from Choice accounts.

Sponsored Content

Importantly, the Commission has also recommended the banking executive accountability regime (BEAR), which governs who is responsible when issues arise, should be applied to the superannuation industry.

In the 951-page report publicly released on Monday afternoon, Hayne made 76 recommendations and highlighted 19 instances of potential misconduct through 22 entities. He referred 24 companies to regulators for possible criminal or civil action- the companies include National Australia Bank, AMP, IOOF, the Commonwealth Bank  and ANZ. In line with the interim report issued in September last year, it was scathing of regulators APRA and ASIC.

The federal government made its pledge to “act” on all the recommendations, despite it voting against a royal commission into the financial services sector 26 times. An Australian federal election will likely occur in May next year, and the opposition Labor party also supports the recommendations.

With regard to financial advice offerings Hayne recommended that opt-in periods become annual, with more focus on the specific services to be provided. This will dramatically change the ongoing service agreements that underpin most advice remuneration models in Australia.

“The central changes I would make are to require that ongoing fee arrangements must be renewed annually and that the client be told what will be done,” he stated in the final report, delivered Monday.

For background click here and for more on the royal commission visit Investment Magazine.

Leave a Comment

Why traditional investment committees can amplify group biases

Why traditional investment committees can amplify group biases

Investment committee meetings, a governance cornerstone at every asset owner organisation, run the risk of amplifying group biases and social dynamics, and can push the IC towards recommending more extreme investment positions collectively than the average of their individual views. Bernhard Scherer, head of portfolio implementation at ADIA, unpacks the thesis in a new paper.

Sort content by

CalPERS: Lessons from CIO departure

The CalPERS board is considering whether to require a new CIO to transfer all of their personal stock holdings into a blind trust while they are a CalPERS' employee. The move follows the resignation of Ben Meng as CIO last year after an ethics investigation related to some of his personal investments.

Trustee standards set by Rest case

Earlier this month the Australian fund, Rest, settled a case with one of its members, Mark McVeigh, who claimed the fund breached its duty by not properly considering the risks posed by climate change. Here, McVeigh's lawyers write exclusively for Top1000funds.com and explain the significance of the case for pension funds around the globe.

Diversity: The data challenge of 2020s

Assessing, managing and changing diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) is set to become the data issue of the 2020s, as asset owners turn their attention to the power they have to advocate for change in the companies they invest in, and the firms that manage their money.

Pension transparency needs a benchmark

A new Global Pension Transparency Benchmark – the first formal collaboration between Top1000funds.com and CEM Benchmarking - will launch in February 2021 ranking countries, via their underlying pension funds, on four factors: governance and organization; performance; costs; and responsible investing.

Canadians more complex than first glance

The Canadian model, revered world over for its supreme pension management, is not low cost despite that being one of its oft-described traits. New research by CEM Benchmarking and McGill University shows that these funds are cost efficient, rather than being low cost. Their aim is to be high net performers, not low cost.

A more thoughtful private equity model

Responsible investors need to take into account how fund management and investment structures may be exacerbating wealth and income disparities, as well as systemic market risk. Raphaele Chappe and Delilah Rothenberg from the Predistribution Initiative have some suggestions for how PE could be adjusted in this regard and how building back better post-COVID-19 requires a more thoughtful model.

Previous