Last Friday, the Royal Commission finished its public hearings into the superannuation industry. Evidence over the two weeks saw a litany of failures stack up, most of which emanated from the retail super sector.
In closing remarks, Counsel Assisting made a number of observations regarding what will likely appear in its written closing submissions this coming Friday.
Three Key Observations Included:
- The evidence as a whole suggests it may be the case the Commissioner will conclude some registrable superannuation entity (RSE) licensees are not prioritising the interests of their members over the interests of others (including themselves and the groups to which they are parties). These RSE licensees may also be in contravention of the best interests duty, and other legal obligations.
- There was also evidence that may suggest some trustees have failed to exercise their discretions independently of other parties.
- Evidence was heard that suggests there may have been problems with the ways in which some trustees communicated to members, information that may have had the potential to confuse or mislead them.
Earlier in the hearings Counsel Assisting the commission Michael Hodge QC said retail funds operated by the big banks had a far greater number of problems than industry superannuation funds. He said the examples of misconduct filed by industry super funds were “extremely minimalist” when compared to issues identified by retail superannuation funds.
And so the evidence proved. The superannuation hearings saw evidence that most of the egregious conduct occurred within the retail sector. For example:
NAB’s super trustee, NULIS, was accused of charging tens of millions of dollars, in fees for services fund members never received — including fees that were charged to dead people. The hearings heard NAB is now paying more than $100m in compensation to super customers charged a plan service fee for advice, when they did not have an adviser linked to their account, and because of this - and so bad were the findings that at the end of the week NAB issued a public apology. The bank may still face more than 100 criminal charges, relating to this particular fee-for-no-service scandal, and failure to report to the regulator about a serious breach of its financial services licence, within 10 days.
CBA’s wealth management business, Colonial First State, was found to have committed more than 15,000 criminal offences by failing to move super fund members paying high fees and commissions, to a low-fee offering, by the required deadline.
Following its Chairwoman and Chief Executive standing down, after earlier revelations about fees-for-no-service, AMP announced it would be paying compensation, for those who ended up paying more in fees than they earned on their cash investments. This covers about 12,500 members, with former fund members to also share in the $5m compensation. AMP has also uncovered further cases of customers being wrongly charged fees, which will lead to about $26m being paid to millions of super fund members.
IOOF was taken to task for having serious "conflict of interest" issues, such as when IOOF Investment Management had responsibility for acting in the best interests of trustees, as well as making a profit for shareholders.
ASIC revealed the compensation bill for the fees-for-no-service scandal could reach $850m across the country’s biggest banks, other estimates put the total past $1 billion.
Honesty, Integrity and Accountability Missing
The fallout from the hearings was equally stark. Reserve Bank Governor, Philip Lowe, said he was “incredibly disappointed and in many cases I have been appalled at the behaviour that has come out through the Royal Commission”. Don Argus, the former head of NAB, said the hearings had exposed a “profit-at-all-costs attitude leading to scandal after scandal” and pointed out the need for basic tenets of honesty, integrity and accountability”.
Perhaps one of the most unexpected criticism’s, came from Financial Services Minister Kelly O’Dwyer, who said “without doubt the most egregious misconduct identified by the commission in the past fortnight has been in the for-profit and bank-owned sector of the superannuation industry, where hundreds of millions of dollars have been wiped from the retirement savings of hardworking Australians who have received seemingly nothing in return.”
APRA and ASIC
Some of the most anticipated recommendations to come out of the Royal Commission, will no doubt be regarding the role of the regulators, APRA and ASIC. Do they need more powers or is a different approach using their existing powers what is needed? Their "softly, softly" approach has been much criticised. When it emerged, for example, that APRA explicitly asked CBA to move 60,000 members' default funds into MySuper, quicker (as required by legislation), but CBA chose not to, (with Board minutes saying such a move would have "significant business implications"), one has to wonder about the effectiveness of their current approach and whether they need less "carrot" and more "stick".
One of the problems for APRA is that it is ultimately a "prudential" regulator (requiring financial firms to control risks and hold adequate capital), and is therefore concerned with stability. APRA's Deputy Chair, Helen Rowell, highlighted the dilemma this causes. Rowell said that taking public, legal action, against funds, could cause a rush of members and employers trying to move their money elsewhere, which could lead to assets being sold cheaply, disadvantaging other members. “There is a risk that public action against an individual trustee may cause reputation and other issues that would potentially make the problem that we were trying to address worse,” she said.
The need for accountability for the regulators, and the recommendations for potential action against miscreant superannuation funds, will be of great interest, when written closing submissions to the Commissioner (including recommendations for action to the Commissioner) are detailed.
Article by:
Comments16
"Still way too many vested interests - I don't care if you're a Retail Fund or an Industry Fund, you have all recently had a light shone in corners that you'd prefer stayed dark. “I think people can spot falseness, they really can. People want real people; they want to trust them, they want to feel like there’s a connection. “They care about what they’re doing for them, and that they’ve got their interest at heart. I think everybody wants that, whether it’s from their manager or from someone they’ve got a commercial dealing with. These aren't the words of a financial planner. They were said by the CEO of REA Group, Tracey Fellows. Those words are very apt here. They reveal why good financial planners, some of whom have been working with the same group of clients for decades, need not fear these ill-deeds of the major banks, financial institutions, and Industry Super Funds. Even a few bad apples amongst the financial planning fraternity can't undo trust that has been forged over decades between financial planners and their clients. Power to the royal commission. If it fleshes out some of the shortcomings of trustees and product providers. If it exposes the vested interests of vertically integrated banks and Industry Super. If it means we get to see under the bonnet of all these institutions, bring it on. But don't think for one minute you have derailed the trust bestowed on good, well-intentioned, experienced, financial planners who act only in the interests of their clients. No sir, you can't have that because you don't own it, and you didn't spend three and a half decades of your life building it. "
Ted 16:36 on 21 Aug 18
"The snouts are in the trough whether it be retail or industry funds. There should not be noacceptance of any bad behaviour on the part of banks or industry fund leaders where client money is concerned, regardless of the magnitude. Whatever policy changes come from this, and there will be many, should be applied across the board of all super establishments, trustees should all be working under the same umbrella. For that to work though, transparency has to be at a level we have never seen before.... not sure that interested parties, be it banks or unions, or boards, or governments have that interest."
Murray 15:27 on 21 Aug 18
"It is very strange that the Commission just focused on the banks (and the private sector generally) and totally ignored many documented concerns occuring within Industry Super. Industry Super funds also aren't that cheap. I only recently found out that Indutry Super Funds are Trade Union Super Funds. Not sure a Trade Unionist running my retirement benefits is better than a Banker ... in fact I'll take the Banker anyday !!! The Industry super fund I was given as a default from an ex-employer was charging me well over 1% a year with NO Advice. They also wouldn't disclose to me who was actually investing their funds or where it was being invested apart from giving me a standard customer service response that they invested it a balanced mix of assets (not being prepared to disclose the actual detail of who and how my super was being invested was of a major concern to me). I actually moved to an Index Retial Super fund charging less fees than the default Industry Super Fund i was given. The comfort of full disclosure of what was happening with my investments in the new retail super fund was also more appropriate and met my best interest (unlike the default industry fund). It was also recently brought to my attention that Trade Unions now control an estimated $650 Billion of the approx $2 Trillion Super industry (and they continue to grow via default arrangements established with most employers). Is it in your interests as a customer/client to have Unionists controlling your super/retirement? ... it wasn't in mine even though the system automatically tried to give it to me. "
Daz 22:34 on 20 Aug 18
"To Warren and others "calling out" industry funds...even if they spent 100 million on advertising campaigns which they obviously didn't, which by the way they would be ENTILTLED to do as long as members benefited, your mates at the the big 4 and AMP are compensating around a BILLION to customers they shouldn't have taken from ALREADY. Orders of magnitude more. Take your ideological blinkers off you numpties. God, if you are advisers i feel for YOUR clients!!"
Reality check 19:28 on 20 Aug 18
"Totally agree with Russ McConachy's comments about banks 'stealing dead people's money' and I totally agree with other comments re: the industry superfunds not being held to account. It ABSOLUTELY infuriates me that this happens when retail superfunds are continually hung out to dry. The directors and trustees of CBUS and the like must surely also have a duty to their members! How is spending members funds on massive advertising campaigns, at sporting events and on directors 'car collections' doing that???!!! As usual - there are two separate rules being applied here and it just stinks!"
Warren 18:22 on 20 Aug 18
"Totally agree with Russ McConachy's comments about banks 'stealing dead people's money' and I totally agree with other comments re: the industry superfunds not being held to account. It ABSOLUTELY infuriates me that this happens when retail superfunds are continually hung out to dry. The directors and trustees of CBUS and the like must surely also have a duty to their members! How is spending members funds on massive advertising campaigns, at sporting events and on directors 'car collections' doing that???!!! As usual - there are two separate rules being applied here and it just stinks!"
Warren 18:21 on 20 Aug 18
"This "fees paid by dead people" rubbish is doing my head in! Why is there no mention of the wills, executors, lawyers and families who are supposed to manage the follow up? It is not that hard to withdraw funds otherwise they stay invested. So until the funds are withdrawn there is a cost, whether living or dead! Simple. Re the adviser fees..... we are usually the last to be told."
Russ McConachy 17:02 on 20 Aug 18
"As pointed out, the greatest irony of this is that superannuation money is invested in for profit organisations. I have a concern that for profit organisations are too greatly focused on shareholder returns (eg superfunds) to the determent of other stakeholders (customers and staff). A not so virtuous circle? "
Paul 17:01 on 20 Aug 18
"As making a profit is clearly not in the best interest of a member (as any profit could be distributed to members) will the commissioner have the guts to take the logical step of closing all for profit funds? [its somewhat ironic that not for profit funds can only prosper from investments in "for profit" entities and ventures. unless our govt wants to underwrite returns on super] "
Real World 16:18 on 20 Aug 18
"No mention of Industry funds again? "
Liz 15:55 on 20 Aug 18
"APRA's Helen Rowell sounds like she is "econobabbling" to use the words of Richard Dennis. So are we saying that the reason for not taking public, legal action, as a regulator of the industry, is not to disrupt the very industry that needs disrupting? That's like saying the government investing in subsidies for the coal industry, instead of for renewable energy sources, is the case because we wouldn't want to disrupt an industry that is primarily responsible for polluting our earth? We live in a world of flux and change, and the superannuation industry, needs to change, regardless of whether that triggers "a mass move of fund members to another fund", which is going to happen anyway, as consumers become more educated about the ridiculous farce that is the "protection" or "performance" of our superannuation funds."
Cassandra 15:40 on 20 Aug 18
"Good article."
Christoph Schnelle 15:31 on 20 Aug 18
"No mention here of industry fund malpractice like schmoozing a quarter of a million buck of members money at the tennis. Industry funds are not so clean either. The commission seems set up to take down retail funds and give union backed funds a free pass. CBUS were not even called to appear. Stitch up smells like a stichup. "
Davis Hampton 15:07 on 20 Aug 18
"I read somewhere that the super industry generates $30 billion in fees EVERY YEAR. Talk about money for jam!"
Anne W 15:02 on 20 Aug 18
"Just gobsmacked at the level of dishonesty on display these last 2 weeks. The banks are the biggest bloodsucking, gouging, hypocritical, born to rule bunch of cowboys there are. How on Earth they continue to get away with this crap is simply beyond me. One billion in compensation says it all. The size of the malpractice is just amazing."
Shocked 15:00 on 20 Aug 18
"If the coalition still want to change the rules to have more "independent" directors on industry fund boards - to make them like the retail funds - God help us all!"
James 14:55 on 20 Aug 18