Superannuation

<html><body><div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
GUEST OBSERVER
The election result has sent a clear message to all political parties – keep changing superannuation policy at your electoral peril.
Although it was the Coalition Government that felt a backlash from voters in the wake of the Budget measures around superannuation that caused so much public angst, the reality is both the major parties were culpable as Labor included these savings in its fiscal estimates. 
What the electorate has rightly discerned is that superannuation is increasingly being seen by all the political parties as a cash cow that can be milked for fiscal reasons. 
However, what we have seen in the election is that many of the people have said ‘enough is enough’, and that there will be an electoral cost if you continue to change the policy settings by which people plan their retirement income strategies. 
It has to be remembered why compulsory superannuation was introduced in the first place – to give people the opportunity to be self-sufficient after leaving the workforce. 
In the SMSF space, in particular, trustees assume the responsibility to be financially independent in retirement, and all they ask of their elected representatives is to determine the policy settings and then leave the system alone. 
Right now it is a difficult time for trustees with volatile investment markets around the globe the order of the day and interest rates at historical lows. 
To compound these market-related issues they have to continually second guess what the government of the day will do with superannuation policy, especially as it relates to its tax treatment. But after last Saturday, it seems doing so might come at a high political cost.
Olivia Long is chief executive officer of SMSF administrators Xpress Super and SuperGuardian and can be contacted <a href="https://www.xpresssuper.com.au" target="_blank">here</a>.
</div>
</div>
</div></body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Election result sends message to politicians – keep your hands off super

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
It is imperative that the new government moves quickly to set the long-term goals for superannuation.
It has been the Association’s long-term policy that the objective and underlying principles of superannuation should be enshrined in legislation, and what has happened over the course of this election campaign has simply reinforced our position. 
It is quite clear that the election highlighted the fact that many in the electorate were unnerved by the changes to superannuation proposed by both major parties and are seeking certainty for their retirement planning.
Both major political parties were seen as moving the goal posts for ordinary Australians to build their savings to ensure a dignified retirement. This is despite the repeated calls from the public and superannuation industry for the ongoing tinkering with superannuation to stop. This is why it is critical to have a politically bipartisan framework for superannuation that is removed from both the budgetary and political cycles for the long term.
We need to have a sustainable and measured policy approach to people’s second largest asset, superannuation. which assists Australians to accumulate adequate retirement income savings for a secure retirement.
It is especially important at times of political uncertainty, such as what has happened with the federal election and Brexit, that people know that their retirement savings are secure.
The Association is ready to work “constructively” with the new Government, Opposition, and cross-benchers in the House of Representatives and the Senate to address the various superannuation policy issues that arose out of the last federal Budget.
It is also important to remember that our superannuation system is one of the world’s best retirement income systems and we need to understand the benefit it provides to our economy and national prosperity.
We are on the record in saying we believed the reduction in the concessional contribution caps were detrimental to the goal of encouraging people to be self-sufficient in retirement and that other budget changes were complex and disrupted many people’s long-term plans. We look forward to working with all parliamentarians to either change or ameliorate the impact of these changes.
It’s also important to note that there were some positive measures in the Budget that were overlooked to some degree, and we will be urging that they get enacted by the new Parliament as quickly as possible.
Among the positives, which the Association has long advocated, were the carry forward of unused concessional contribution caps, allowing people aged between 65 and 74 to contribute to their super without meeting the ‘work test’, and removing the ‘10 percent’ rule that allows all fund members to make deductible contributions to their super.
 
Andrea Slattery is chief executive officer, SMSF Association and can be <a href="https://www.smsfassociation.com" target="_blank">contacted here</a>.
 
</body></html>

Election highlights need to set long-term super goals: Andrea Slattery 

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The release of the Productivity Commission’s Draft Report Superannuation: Alternative Default Models on Wednesday has certainly raised some conjecture across the superannuation industry.
The Report’s recommendations warrant a serious assessment given their potential ramifications for what remains a burgeoning superannuation industry, with a substantial number of funds still co-existing, despite ongoing pressures for consolidation.
SuperRatings notes that the over-arching criteria for assessment and inclusion as a default fund proposed by the Productivity Commission is a focus on net-returns, which SuperRatings has been advocating for many years, via its net benefit modelling. This measures a fund’s net returns after the deduction of all fees and taxes over a 10-year period.
Given the findings closely align to SuperRatings’ existing net benefit modelling, we have analysed the funds that would be likely to sit within the ‘List of 10’ default funds, assuming a key focus on net returns, under the Productivity Commission’s proposed multi-criteria tender model. These funds are, in alphabetical order:
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/04/4/po%202.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2017/04/4/po%202.jpg" width="600" height="579">
 
 
Based upon SuperRatings net benefit modelling, the above funds have the highest net investment returns over a 10-year period and hence, would be included based on a pure net investment performance measure.
As can be seen from the above table, each of the top performing funds on a net return basis is a Not-for-Profit fund, suggesting that the Retail Fund sector may continue to struggle to be named as defaults, unless a broader assessment of measures is utilised.
SuperRatings CEO, Adam Gee, commented “Whilst we remain supportive of the Productivity Commission’s broader intentions, limiting a default list to only 10 funds will result in some outstanding value for money funds missing out on default fund status, which may sound the death knell for many of these, despite delivering excellent outcomes for their members”.
RECOMMENDATIONS VERY SIMILAR TO THE NZ KIWISAVER MODEL
Through its research and ratings of the NZ KiwiSaver system, SuperRatings recognises substantial similarities between the recommendations contained within the Productivity Commission report, particularly in respect of Model 3 – the multicriteria tender.
This includes the Productivity Commission’s suggestion of using the Australian Taxation Office as a centralised clearing house. The New Zealand equivalent, Inland Revenue Department, currently provides this service for contributions to be made by employers, which are then distributed to each of the relevant KiwiSaver schemes. This process also ensures (with legislative support) that only a single account can be created for an individual during their lifetime, removing the multiple account issue that continues to be problematic within the Australian system. Similarly, the KiwiSaver model moved towards a limited model for default contributions in 2014, via a selection process, in which nine of the approximate forty schemes available in the market at the time, were authorised as default providers.
SuperRatings believes that the KiwiSaver system remains one of the most efficient markets, particularly in relation to its operational and administrative processes. Referring to SuperRatings’ 2016 ratings of the KiwiSaver market, Mr Gee said “We continue to rate the KiwiSaver market highly in comparison to the other global retirement systems, with strong levels of member engagement and investment choice evident, underpinned by very cost effective operating models.”
Evidencing the efficiency of the KiwiSaver market and streamlined nature of its contribution and membership flows, SuperRatings research noted that a comparison of operating costs between NZ and Australia showed material differences. Based upon SuperRatings “Cost per Member” calculation (which effectively normalises the operating costs to an annual per member basis), the annual cost to a fund to operate a KiwiSaver member sits at slightly less than $60. This is in stark contrast to the average cost per member within Australia of $255, suggesting there may be some merit in the NZ model.
A REASONABLE START BUT A BROAD ASSESSMENT NEEDED
Whilst SuperRatings believes there is already a reasonable level of competition evident in most sectors of the superannuation marketplace, it also recognises that any changes that introduce greater competition into the market and provide members with better retirement outcomes can only be positive.
That said, SuperRatings does recognise that the initial assessment criteria proposed by the Productivity Commission remains limited. Mr Gee further commented that “the exclusion of insurance from the assessment is fraught with danger, given the important role it continues to play within superannuation and the community more broadly”.
In line with its value assessment of a superannuation fund, SuperRatings continues to believe that a broad assessment of quality is required in order to select a default superannuation fund. This must include an assessment of a range of underlying metrics in respect of investments, fees, insurance, member servicing/advice, administration and governance, to ensure that every facet of a superannuation fund’s offering can be appropriately interrogated.
SuperRatings looks forward to continuing to assess the outcomes of the Productivity Commissions Draft Report and will continue to engage in the consultation process.
 
Adam Gee is the CEO of SuperRatings and can be contacted <a href="https://www.superratings.com.au" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Productivity Commission findings no windfall for retail funds: Adam Gee

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
All Australians should be able to retire with dignity and decent living standards, states the recently released superannuation report of the Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA).
CEDA’s report is commendable. And although I agree with most of its recommendations, including what the purpose of super should be, how retirement income products dealing with longevity risk should be developed and how super tax laws should be made more equitable, I have one serious misgiving: I do not believe active employees should be able to use their super funds to invest in owner-occupied housing.
The American 401(k) system (also a defined contribution model like Australian super) provides a cautionary tale on the damage caused by what’s known as pre-retirement leakage. Unlike Australia, it is fairly easy for US workers to access their 401(k) retirement accounts during active employment. Even prior to preservation age, which is 59<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/"></a>½ in the US, individuals are able to use their workplace retirement accounts for a number of purposes, both with and without tax consequences.
For instance, the US tax code allows individuals under specified circumstances to take loans against the value of their retirement funds without tax penalty. Although such funds are required to be secured and paid back like any other commercial loan, studies show many employees are never able to restore the money to their 401(k) accounts. Not only does this lead to diminished pension pots, it also means there will be less money upon which interest or investment returns can build on in the long-term.
The US 401(k) system also permits employees to take hardship distributions for a number of reasons, including purchasing of a first home, university education and medical expenses. In these circumstances, not only does the individual not face any tax penalties for the withdrawal (except for having to pay ordinary income tax), they are also not required to pay back the money to their account.
Finally, employees can take money out of their 401(k) accounts if they “really” want. What I mean is, absent even an authorised loan or hardship distribution, employees before preservation age can withdraw funds from their retirement accounts. We call this “expensive money” because both a 10% excise tax and 20% employer withholding of funds apply. In the end, these employees receive 70 cents in the dollar for withdrawing money prematurely from their retirement account.
Such leakage in the US causes a significant erosion of assets in retirement - approximately 1.5% of retirement plan assets “leak” out every year. This can potentially lead to a reduction in total retirement assets of 20% to 25% over an employee’s working years, according to experts.
<h2>Remember the role of super</h2>
I do not disagree with the CEDA report that housing makes a critical contribution to sustaining living standards and helping to address elderly poverty. Needless to say, there should be a multipronged federal government response to the spectre of increasing poverty in old age because of the lack of home ownership. Many useful suggestions are made in the CEDA report in this regard.
But using super, even if only for first-time home buyers, should not be the answer. Indeed, CEDA agrees with much of the recent Financial System Inquiry report (the Murray report), which concludes that super legislation should state explicitly and clearly that its purpose is to provide retirement income.
While increasing home ownership for younger workers is an admirable policy prescription, it is not consistent with the retirement income focus of super. Allowing workers to use their super funds to buy homes means there will be much less money in the pension pot to grow over time to provide the necessary retirement income.
And the harm is ongoing. Making such a change would lead to a further constrained supply of housing, meaning more money chasing the increasingly limited stock of property, tending to drive home prices up even further.
Of course, when, not if, the housing market crashes, much of the super savings tied into such property will also be lost. This problem stems from a lack of diversification in one’s retirement portfolio through an over-investment in the family home. The consequent lack of investment diversification among asset classes means super is less likely to be able to survive future shocks to the Australian economic system.
The lesson from the United States is clear: pre-retirement leakage from super should be permitted only under the most exceptional of circumstances. Even for the very best of reasons, like first-time home ownership, Canberra should prevent super fund leakage during active employment to ensure the primary objective of super: retirement income adequacy.
Paul Secunda is senior Fulbright Scholar in Law (Labour and Super) at University of Melbourne and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/paul-secunda-187662" target="_blank">here.</a>
</body></html>

Tapping super not the answer to home ownership decline

<html><body>
<div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
GUEST OBSERVER
A decade or so ago a large Australian fund manager ran a campaign urging Australians to pay more attention to their superannuation (pension) savings. 
This initially struck me as good advice – after the family home for most of us it will end up being our biggest pot of savings so it makes sense to keep a close eye on it. And surely the closer we look at it the better the outcome? But over the years I have come to the view that we need to be careful here. 
In fact the avalanche of information around investing if not properly managed may be making us worse, not better, investors: more fearful, more jittery and more focussed on the short term than ever. I have looked at this theme before and the more I look into it the more convinced I have become that investors need to try and turn down the noise around investing. 
The permanent worry list 
The technology revolution has made it easier and easier to track our investments. And with this has come easier and easier access to information and views around the outlook for investment markets. Some of this is balanced, but a lot of it is not. 
For the last few years it seems there has been a constant worry list with a range of things about to drag us down into the next financial crisis: budget deficits, debt, money printing, the Euro, Greece (every six months!), hyperinflation, deflation, taxes, welfare spending, banks, retiring baby boomers, the government, peak oil, low oil, pollution, global warming, the Middle East, terrorism, Russia, a pandemic, China, the South China Sea, emerging markets and of course the current fascination being the Fed (will she or won't she?). And of course the perennial worry in Australia relates to the residential property market. 
Big picture macro concerns have always been around. And I find it very hard to believe that things are any worse today than they were 100 years ago (when Europe had entered World War 1, living standards and life expectancy were a fraction of today's and pandemics were a regular phenomenon). 
But the communication revolution means that such concerns are now regularly in our face. I cannot google something without links popping up to new disasters. The fascination with financial news has exploded – with several financial TV channels with 24/7 finance updates interspersed with constant debate about what it all means. And this is now all accessible via apps we can have at our fingertips on smart phones.
</div>
<div class="column">
Loss myopia 
In a way this is all fun. But there are several risks. Human nature is naturally cautious because our brains evolved at a time when we had to be on the lookout for physical threats. As a result bad news always attracts more interest and so "bad news sells". Of course, this also applies to financial news. 
But it also feeds into a common behavioural trait called "myopic loss aversion." And here lies the threat to our long term financial health. Oddly enough I was reminded of this by a great Wall Street Journal article I saw recently – "Keep Stock-Market Apps Off Your Phone", by Dr Shlomo Benartzi – that I actually found on a stock market app on my phone! It’s long been observed that a loss in financial wealth is felt much more distastefully by investors than the beneficial impact of the same sized gain and in the world of behavioural economists – who study how people behave in relation to economic and finance considerations – this has come to be known as "myopic loss aversion". 
When the value of an investment falls it makes sense that unless something has fundamentally gone wrong investors should be thinking about increasing their allocation to it to take advantage of it now being cheaper and better value and therefore offering better return prospects. 
The reality though is that many are motivated to do the opposite as the distaste for loss combines with another well-known behavioural trait called "recency bias" that causes investors to give more weight to recent events than they should so they project recent news of falls in their investment into the future. 
The information overload we are now seeing is likely to be reinforcing this because it is increasing our exposure to news about our investments. And this constant feedback is likely adding to "myopic loss aversion". (Hopefully this is not getting too technical!) 
The shorter the horizon the worse shares look 
In a family discussion about shares versus bank term deposits a relative once observed to me that there is no point investing in shares as they just go down about as much as they go up. I thought this odd as my experience has been a lot more positive. But then it occurred to me that for many people their perception of what shares do likely comes from daily updates – from the media or increasingly via an app. And this can lead to a very jaundiced experience.
<div class="page" title="Page 2">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
For example, if you track the daily movements in the Australian All Ordinaries share price index, measured over the last twenty years it has been down almost as much as it has been up with falls 47% of the time and gains 53% of the time. It’s little different for the US S&amp;P 500 share index which has seen falls 46% of the time on a daily basis versus gains 54% of the time. So from day to day it’s pretty much a coin toss with bad news nearly half the time. 
By contrast if you only look at how the share market has gone each month and allow for dividends the historical experience tells us you will only get bad news (ie a loss) 35% of the time in Australia and the US. Looking only on a calendar year basis, data back to 1900 indicates that the probability of bad news in the form of a loss slides further to just 19% for Australian shares and 27% for US shares. And if you can stretch it out to once a decade, again since 1900, positive returns have been seen 100% of the time for Australian shares and 82% of the time for US shares. See the next chart.  
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="page" title="Page 2">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<a href="/images/2015/11/12/Screen%20Shot%202015-11-12%20at%202.49.34%20PM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2015/11/12/Screen%20Shot%202015-11-12%20at%202.49.34%20PM.png" alt="">
<div class="page" title="Page 2">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
The point is that the less frequently you look the less you will be disappointed and so the lower the chance that a bout of "myopic loss aversion" will be triggered which causes you to adopt an investment strategy which is too cautious to meet your goals or leads you to sell at precisely the wrong time. 
But is there any evidence backing this up? Yes there is. As the Wall Street Journal article sited above noted, a 1997 study by US behavioural economists Richard Thaler, Amos Tversky, Daniel Kahneman and Alan Schwartz showed that providing investors in an experiment "with frequent feedback about their [investment] outcome is likely to encourage their worst tendencies...More is not always better. 
The subjects with the most data did the worst in terms of money earned." Basically what's happening here is that investors tend to go for the safer lower returning investment options when more frequent feedback on their investment performance is provided. 
Of course, the greater access to financial information we are now seeing in the media and via mobile devices is having the effect of encouraging us to look at our investments more frequently not less – via daily and even more frequent updates. And around this is an avalanche of news and other information that is often out of context, often irrelevant and often in the bad news category. 
This has the effect of exposing us to more frequent news of loss from our investments and reinforcing that news. Which in turn risks encouraging bad investment decisions. In particular a focus away from investments like shares that can grow wealth over time towards assets that may be safe in the short term but will lead to much lower wealth levels over the long term. 
<div class="page" title="Page 2">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
What can investors do to avoid this? 
The key I think is to find ways to turn down the volume on financial news because if you are exposed to it less frequently you are less likely to make decisions that are contrary to your long term investment goals. Try to avoid looking at market updates so regularly and even consider removing related apps from your smart phones, tablets and watches. Or at the very least find a way to filter such news in a way that it doesn't distort your investment decisions. 
The traditional approach of adopting a long term investment strategy and sticking to it is arguably now more important than ever. Yes we are now in an environment of more constrained and volatile investment returns which has increased the importance of active asset allocation – but this is best left to experts who can put the time in to filter the noise from fundamental signals and avoid allowing “myopic loss aversion” from getting control.
 
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://plus.google.com/110172465327488162875?rel=author" target="_blank">SHANE OLIVER</a> is head of investment strategy and economics and chief economist at <a href="https://www.ampcapital.com.au/home" target="_blank">AMP Capital</a> and is responsible for AMP Capital's diversified investment funds.
</div>
</div>
</div>
 
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body></html>

The perils for investors of too much information in the app age: Shane Oliver

<html><body>
Removing taxes and allowing first home buyers to use money from their super are a few of the changes the ABN Group finds necessary to improve home ownership in Australia, specially in Western Australia and Victoria.
In the submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, ABN Group said based on independent economic modelling commissioned by the HIA, housing affordability could be improved with the implementation of reforms which remove inefficient taxes that specifically effect housing, such as stamp duty on conveyance, and replace the government revenue with more efficient taxes.
"In the process of selling a property, stamp duty can be paid multiple times: at the sale of land to developer; from the developer to the builder and the sale of the house and land package to purchaser. The cost of this 'triple taxation' is reflected in the final purchase price paid by the homebuyer.
"Land tax incurred during the development phase of housing significantly adds to the holding costs of developers. In WA land tax has increased 30 per cent over the last two years. This additional cost further adds to affordability. 
"The ABN Group also strongly believes that payroll tax limits business and employment growth and development in this state [WA]. Although the ERA report labels payroll tax an efficient tax, ABN believe any review of state taxes must include a review of the impact of payroll tax, with a view to reducing the Government's reliance on this source of income.
"The single greatest hurdle to home ownership for first home buyers is overcoming the 'deposit gap'. The ABN Group believes that considerations should be made to help more first home buyers to save for a house deposit in Australia.
The ABN Group supports the WA Keystart program, which has funded 20% of all first home buyers. ABN believes that Victoria could benefit from a similar program.
ABN also suggests that a senior housing minister is appointed at state and federal level.
"Given the status of a senior cabinet member and their scope to drive change these appointments would facilitate housing policy outcomes for significant, yet neglected issues, such as housing affordability.
"This coordinated approach at both state and federal levels would remove current blockages and create efficiencies in providing home ownership solutions in Australia.
</body></html>

First home buyers need early access to super: ABN Group

Governance and culture in superannuation: APRA's Helen Rowell

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
It is received wisdom in the Australian superannuation industry that bigger is better. The theory goes that funds with more assets under management will benefit from economies of scale, because the costs of running a superannuation fund are largely fixed and do not change much, whether you are managing assets of A$500 million or $50 billion.
This means that funds which have more assets under management will spend proportionally less on administration and overheads. This will allow them to make more competitive returns and supposedly give them an edge in the marketplace. The endpoint of this reasoning is that a market’s conditions will be a “critical threshold” when it comes to size.
Any funds smaller than that threshold would be too inefficient and would eventually succumb to the larger and more efficient competition, being either absorbed into a larger fund (to restore economies of scale) or losing members attracted to greener pastures, as the bigger funds could charge lower fees per member.
<h2>But is this true for industry superannuation funds?</h2>
We decided to look into whether it was indeed the case that larger funds have an advantage in economies of scale over smaller funds. In particular, we were hoping to find signs of healthy competition in the superannuation marketplace, as competition helps assure us that the industry is appropriately serving the needs and demands of consumers. Such competition might take the form of strategic mergers between smaller funds, or attempts by larger funds to advertise their relative efficiency and lure away the members of the smaller funds.
Signs of healthy competition are especially important for the superannuation industry, as one of the largest sectors in the economy and a crucial part of our collective ability to finance our retirement. The review used data from industry funds, which disclose this information in annual reports. Retail (for profit) funds do not always disclose this information.
<h2>Comparing administrative efficiency</h2>
In order to work out whether super funds really do benefit from economies of scale, we looked at the largest and the smallest industry superannuation funds. In particular, we compared them based on the proportion of assets under management spent on administration costs each year. If the theory that “bigger is better” is correct, one would expect to find that larger funds spend a far lower proportion of their total assets on administration costs.
One would expect this difference to be especially prominent given the massive size discrepancy between industry superannuation funds: the largest, Australian Super, held over $90 billion in assets in 2015 compared to the smallest fund, Transport Super, with a relatively miniscule $114 million.
When comparing some of the top dogs to a handful of middle-sized industry funds, there seems to be no marked correlation between size and efficiency:
<a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/124413/width754/image-20160530-879-1jmptgw.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<h4>
<img src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/124413/width754/image-20160530-879-1jmptgw.png" alt="">Source: Fund annual reports
</h4>
This is very surprising, as these funds do vary by quite a large margin of assets; the two mid-sized funds shown hold about $7 billion each, whereas the two large funds hold over $37 billion and $90 billion.
To further check these results we decided to compare a handful of the largest funds to the five smallest. At first glance, this comparison seems to confirm the “bigger is better” theory:
<a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/124414/width754/image-20160530-10041-3xm71g.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<h4>
<img src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/124414/width754/image-20160530-10041-3xm71g.png" alt="">Source: Authors
</h4>
However, when we look past these averages at some of the individual funds (both the largest and the smallest), a much more interesting picture emerges: some of the tiniest funds (in solid lines) seem to be just as cost-effective as the very largest (the dashed lines).
<a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/124415/width754/image-20160530-864-pk9vqg.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<h4><img src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/124415/width754/image-20160530-864-pk9vqg.png" alt=""></h4>
<h4>Source: Fund annual reports</h4>
<h2>A potentially embarrassing situation</h2>
These findings run in stark contrast to prevailing wisdom about the superannuation sector and indeed the classic economic theory of economies of scale. Not only do the biggest funds have no discernible efficiency advantage over the much smaller mid-sized funds, but there are some positively tiny funds which are just as efficient as some of the very largest.
What is going on here – is this merely some market aberration, or are some smaller funds putting up a heroic David-and-Goliath struggle against their competitors? The question for the big funds is why they have no efficiency advantage over their smallest competitors, and what steps they ought to be taking to rectify a potentially embarrassing situation which has been in place for many years.
<h2>Data</h2>
The data-set used for this article consisted of the financial information of the 14 largest and 5 smallest industry superannuation funds, as ranked by APRA’s statistical publications. The data as to the level of administrative expense came from the annual reports of the superannuation funds. An overview of the funds and the size of their assets is shown below.
<a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/124416/width754/image-20160530-903-21i56.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<h4><img src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/124416/width754/image-20160530-903-21i56.png" alt=""></h4>
<h4>Source: Fund annual reports</h4>
Rob Nicholls is lecturer, UNSW Australia, and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/rob-nicholls-91073" target="_blank">here</a>.
This piece has been co-authored with Veevek Doolabh, a final year undergraduate law student at UNSW.
 
</body></html>

The myth of economies of scale: bigger is not necessarily better for super funds

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/76159/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
The federal government is split on whether first home buyers in Australia should be allowed to use part of their superannuation for home deposits.
But what the more strident critics miss is that Australia’s superannuation system already channels a significant proportion of retirement savings into housing.
It does this not via the traditional route of people buying a house outright, but rather through an indirect channel, by transforming the household’s compulsorily acquired superannuation equity into mortgages from commercial banks and other financial intermediaries.
Statistics from the ABS (December 2016) show that for every A$1 of assets managed by the superannuation sector, approximately 27 cents is directly financing Australia’s banking sector. This is via superannuation holdings of bank deposits (14c in the dollar), bank equity (7c in the dollar), and other bank liabilities (6c in the dollar).
What do banks do with this 27c? The ABS reports that 38 percent of bank financial assets are long-term loans to households. We have cross-inspected this data with figures from the Australian Prudential and Regulation Authority (APRA) and found that nearly all of these loans are mortgages.
This suggests that at least 10c of every A$1 of superannuation assets is indirectly financing house purchases via commercial bank debt.
But this also excludes other indirect financing of banks by superannuation. For example, the portfolios of non-money market mutual funds and other private non-financial corporations are also heavily weighted towards funding banks (24 percent and 36 percent of their assets, respectively), and superannuation funds allocate 6 percent and 24 percent of their funds to these agents respectively. This potentially adds a further 4c in every A$1 of superannuation assets that ultimately results in debt financing of housing.
Why using super for housing might be good idea
One of the merits of allowing households to use their superannuation to supplement their housing deposits would be to reduce unnecessary and expensive financial middlemen. Under the present system, the money from superannuation that finds its way into housing finance does so by passing through chains of two or more intermediaries. This means that it incurs management expenses at each step.
The first link in the chain is the superannuation sector (with an average expense ratio of 0.7 percent). Next is one or more financial intermediaries, like banks. A plausible estimate of the banking sector’s expense ratio, by our calculations, is 1 percent to 2.3 percent of bank assets.
Total expenses through the intermediation chain could therefore be as high as 1.7 percent to 3 percent. These expenses might be lower under a housing equity super access scheme.
Another potential benefit relates to the accumulation of debt and its consequences for financial stability.
Most of the money people put away into superannuation, because its compulsory, would have otherwise been used for other types of saving. If you look at the assets in a household’s balance sheet, it is clear that housing equity (representing 65 percent of non-superannuation assets) is the household’s preferred savings vehicle.
It is possible that growth in compulsory superannuation has contributed to growth in household debt in two ways. First, by frustrating people’s ability to finance home ownership through their deposit. Second, by increasing the supply of mortgage finance, as superannuation savings are recycled through the financial system, and converted to mortgages by the banks.
The risks with the plan
One concern about letting people divert money into buying a house is that their income in retirement could suffer as a result. To mitigate the risk of this happening, any policy on this would need to record and track the values of super funds’ home equity stakes (just as super funds presently track values for the traditional assets they hold).
But retirement income is determined by total net assets, not superannuation assets alone. In this context, home ownership provides retirees an important stream of stable tax-free, inflation-protected, income. This is recognised by the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia benchmarks for “modest” and “comfortable” retirement income.
These assume that retirees own their home outright. So the decline in home ownership is a significant threat to the adequacy of Australia’s retirement income system.
A second risk is that the policy could further raise house prices, reducing affordability and exposing retirement savings to a house price collapse. In the present house price environment, this is a real risk, which would need to be monitored. But the policy’s two main merits (reducing intermediation costs and improving financial stability by reducing gross debt) are long-run benefits that will continue to hold beyond our current point in the house price cycle.
APRA also already monitors risks associated with housing credit growth, and has the tools, and the willingness to use them, should the policy promote undesired house price growth.
There are reasons to expect that a policy allowing first home buyers access to super will not lead to net growth in housing finance. Superannuation funds are already required by APRA to understand their underlying asset exposure risks. So super funds might try to maintain their total exposure to property risk under this policy, for example by reducing their exposure to the banks. 
James Giesecke<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/james-giesecke-9853"> </a>is professor, Centre of Policy Studies and the Impact Project, Victoria University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/james-giesecke-9853" target="_blank">here</a>.
Jason Nassios is research fellow, Centre of Policy Studies, Victoria University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jason-nassios-318488" target="_blank">here</a>.
Both are authors for The Conversation.
 
</body></html>

Here’s how superannuation is already financing homes

<html><body><div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
GUEST OBSERVER
The SMSF Association has produced compelling evidence that the Federal Government should increase the concessional contribution cap for people aged 50 and over and extend the carry forward of concessional contributions.
Research undertaken for the organisation by the actuarial consultancy firm Rice Warner “conclusively shows” that people only begin making significant voluntary contributions to superannuation from their mid-50s onwards.
The research confirms what the Association has long been telling policy makers: that there is a sharp difference between compulsory and voluntary contributions to superannuation – the former increase gradually over time while the latter jump dramatically in the years leading to retirement.
The Rice Warner research used a sample of 14,351 SMSF members provided to the Association by BGL, a leading SMSF software provider.
This research graphically shows why people aged 50 and over need to have a more generous contribution cap than the $25,000 that will apply from 1 July 2017.
The Association has argued for the Government to retain the current $35,000 cap for older workers and notes that even a compromise of a $30,000 cap for those over 50 years will still benefit fund members trying to save their superannuation savings to achieve a dignified retirement.
The research highlights the significant impact that voluntary contributions can have on a fund member’s superannuation balance.
The research also highlights that if the carry forward concessional contribution limit was increased from a balance of $500,000 to $750,000 it would benefit 13% of the members in the sample, of which half would be female. This measure alone would go a long way towards building adequacy for women.
The Association believes that this change would increase the effectiveness of the Government’s carry forward policy and deliver better results for people who have had volatile incomes throughout their careers and are trying to build adequate retirement savings.
These important policy changes will allow a greater opportunity for people to achieve a secure and dignified retirement by building their retirement savings.
It’s also significant that women’s contribution patterns show that when they are in the workforce they are engaged with their superannuation in an SMSF, and this particularly applies when they are in the 60-plus age group.
Rice Warner CEO Michael Rice said the underlying focus of the research was to measure the impact of recently proposed legislative changes to tax treatment in superannuation on SMSF members and potential refinements.
The three most significant of those proposed legislative changes were: the introduction of a $1.6 million cap on the amount that can be transferred from accumulation accounts to pension accounts, the reduction of the concessional contribution cap to $25,000 from $35,000 and the introduction of a $100,000 yearly non-concessional contributions cap (restricted to those with balances under $500,000).
The research shows that the proposed changes will have a material impact on the SMSF population and will restrict members’ ability to save in superannuation.” 
Andrea Slattery is managing director and chief executive officer of the SMSF Association and can be contacted <a href="https://www.smsfassociation.com" target="_blank">here</a>.
</div>
</div>
</div></body></html>

Superannuation

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Superannuation

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News