- Apr 28, 2006
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
. My understanding that it wasn't a benefit to members in all caes.The requirement that super funds act in the best financial interests of their members is up for review, as is the nature of the performance test that weeds out poorly-performing funds.theconversation.com
Could someone explain the ALP's motivations here? On the face of it, seems a bit counter to their normal policy direction, so not sure if I am missing something.
I know of a few industry super funds where the membership was a high risk insurance category. The funds trustees had a policy of funding members premiums through investment returns. These funds were deemed to be under performing and have now merged into bigger funds. Subsequently these members are now getting better investments returns, but the insurance arrangements for the members are far far worse. The legislation assumed investment return is the only measure to compare the members best interest.
The following of the members money was just illogical from the inception. All super product arent the same. If the members money is in an accumulation plan, but changes jobs to to a new employer that has a defined benefit plan. The new current rules now disadvantage the member. The legislation wrongly assumed all funds a Super Guaranteed contribution based.