Inquiry hits Australian superannuation

As ridiculous as it sounds, fee-for-no-service is now a recognised thing in the Australian financial services sector. I can’t get my head around it. Fee. For no service.

The Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry was established in December last year and in the last two weeks the focus has been on the A$2.6 trillion ($1.9 trillion) superannuation sector – the fourth-largest pot of pension money in the world.

The maxim fee-for-no-service is one of the gems to come out of the commission so far. It would be funny if it weren’t so appalling.

The royal commission has focused on the internal workings of superannuation funds and, refreshingly, has shone a light on the industry, creating clarity around some pretty basic issues.

The first week of superannuation hearings at the royal commission focused heavily on issues related to fees and whether they had been inappropriately or illegally deducted from members’ accounts.

In Australia, there are a number of different types of superannuation funds, including not-for-profit industry funds, corporate funds and retail funds, the latter of which are largely provided by the big banks. The royal commission has revealed some of the behaviours and activities in those banks to be downright wrong and possibly criminal.

Sponsored Content

Consumers have been deliberately misled, members of funds have been charged for advice and services they didn’t receive, and in an absolutely outrageous and horrifying act, dead people have been charged for services on an ongoing basis.

National Australia Bank is one of the big offenders. An Australian Securities and Investments Commission report found the bank to have been incorrectly charging fees since 2004. At the royal commission hearings, NAB executives were questioned about more than 100 potentially criminal breaches of superannuation laws.

AMP and the four big banks – NAB, ANZ Banking Group, Commonwealth Bank and Westpac – have agreed to refund more than $219 million to superannuation and wealth customers due to fees-for-no-service, primarily as a result of charging ongoing advice fees but failing to provide any general or personal advice.

The bank-owned superannuation funds aren’t the only ones that have been behaving inappropriately.

There are 113 MySuper products in Australia – these are Australian Prudential Regulation Authority-regulated superannuation funds – and mergers of funds for scale and member benefits has been on the agenda for years. But the commission heard that mergers between superannuation funds have failed specifically because of self-interest: trustees and executives not wanting to merge because there may not be a job for them in the new regime. Further, the commission heard that trustees have not undergone skills-based assessments as part of their appointment process and have clearly not been putting the interests of members first.

In his 1976 book The Unseen Revolution: How pension fund socialism came to America, management expert Peter Drucker warned of the potential abuse of power around large pools of money. He said the real danger was that large pools of assets could be highjacked by four groups: business, organised labour, government and the financial services industry. The latter group has clearly taken liberties in Australia.

All players in the superannuation ‘value’ chain have the privilege of managing other people’s money. And in Australia, superannuation is compulsory. Every working Australian, and every employer, must contribute to superannuation. So not only are members of funds putting faith and trust in the hands of those managing their money, they must do so.

Australia’s Governance Institute Ethics Index was released this week and, perhaps not surprisingly, financial services was the lowest-rated industry in the survey, with 55 per cent of respondents viewing it as unethical.

The Australian financial services sector has some work to do. Well, let’s face it, it has a lot of work to do.

Commissioner Kenneth Hayne, a former justice of the High Court of Australia, will hand down his interim report on September 30.

For more detailed stories on the royal commission, visit our sister publication Investment Magazine

 

Leave a Comment

Pension funds confront the question of who owns AI

Pension funds confront the question of who owns AI

As the use of AI within asset owners evolves, organisations are grappling with the governance question of where the strategy and accountability sit. Darcy Song looks at the treatment of AI organisationally within a number of high-profile funds, including OTPP, AustralianSuper, CPP and Norges Bank.

Sort content by

NBIM on AI cultural and organisational integration

By the evening of August 7, the same day GPT-5 was launched by Open AI, NBIM had it available to the entire organisation in a secure and scalable way. Joined on stage by CEO Nicolai Tangen at this year's Arendalsuka, the team behind AI integration explains their aggressive approach.

Responsible AI: Railpen lays out the risks

Much is written extolling the investor opportunities inherent in AI at a time policy makers continue to prioritise deregulation and innovation over safety, but a new report from £34 billion Railpen on the risks AI holds for investors' portfolio companies provides a valuable reality check.

Asset managers can’t have it both ways on sustainability

Asset managers have recently been trying to show that they could cater to all sides, from asset owners that have spent years integrating sustainability into their investment strategies to anti-ESG elected officials in states like Texas. But Hugues Létourneau writes that they can't have it all.

AP4: Why a dynamic, shorter term allocation is paying off

Volatile markets have provided a rich hunting ground and opportunistic best ideas have come thick and fast for AP4’s new five-pronged global allocation made up of systematic equity, currency and rates, asset allocation, hedge funds/external mandates and analysis. Magdalena Högberg explains the risks and opportunities of the best ideas allocation.

Change management in action: CalSTRS lays out how it’s integrating AI

In a recent board meeting, CalSTRS staff outlined how they are integrating AI into the investment process in line with its commitment to be an early adopter of the technology, including writing a set of generative AI policies and guidelines, conducting a cost-benefit analysis and identifying scalable use cases.

Large language models to spark ‘sea change’ in investment analysis

Andrew Lo, finance professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management, believes large language models can bridge the gap between fundamental and quantitative investing in a way that was unfathomable five or 10 years ago, and create ‘quantamental’ investment strategies which would bring together the best of both worlds.

Previous