Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 333

Five innovation traps for super funds to avoid

Large superannuation funds are currently debating the merits of APRA’s imminent ‘heatmap’ system of grading MySuper funds under the colours of red (a flag for members), yellow (a further look required) or white (a relatively clean bill of health), with varying shades. Note there is no green because, to quote APRA Deputy Chair, Helen Rowell,

"This is not a traditional 'traffic light' system with three distinct and simple categories. This is intentional. The heatmap is designed to emphasise underperformance; it’s not meant to give a pat on the back to better performing MySuper products, or be seen as a peer ranking mechanism." 

This idea emanated from the Productivity Commission’s recommendation earlier this year that superannuation fund members be able to rely on a ‘best in show’ default fund shortlist.

Looking for more innovation from super funds

Behind the Productivity Commission’s original recommendation is one aspect that deserves more attention - that APRA-regulated funds be assessed on a “record of innovation, including in the use of member-related data, and in developing products over time (including retirement)”. This is a timely reminder that innovation is a thing of value; a cultural attribute that enhances a fund’s ability to deliver on its central mission to members.

The Productivity Commission’s exhortation sends a message that superannuation funds (and industry segments) who can genuinely innovate will have a competitive advantage over funds that don’t. More to the point, members of an innovative fund are more likely to be better off in retirement than members of a fund that does not innovate.

Our published research on ‘Status Quo Thinking’ notes that genuine innovation is surprisingly hard to master, whether in the corporate, superannuation or other sector, and questions whether superannuation funds could show a good track record on innovation. Scale, career risk management, peer sensitivity and cultural risk aversion are among the headwinds to effective innovation that funds face.

The architects of both the Cooper (2010) and Murray (2014) reports into superannuation have criticised the industry for its lack of innovation.

Regulators want innovation but make it difficult

The CEO of ASFA has pointed to the raft of regulations and reviews as ‘crowding out’ funds’ ability to innovate.

Regulators cannot have it both ways – they cannot both affirm the Productivity Commission’s views on innovation and also foster an environment that makes it hard for funds to innovate. 

Our own research suggests that while innovation is hard to do, funds can take two immediate steps to seize the innovation mantle. The prize – giving members confidence and dignity in retirement – is large and the risks are potentially existential for funds who attract a ‘red light’ grading from APRA.

First, initiate an explicit discussion within the fund about what innovation really is.

Does the superannuation fund speak innovation language? Is innovation defined too timidly. For example, is existing thinking 'tweaked' rather than challenging, or even (shock, horror) changing the paradigms themselves? For example, innovative retirement solution design surely needs to go beyond merely tweaking existing pre-retirement accumulation products and begin by redefining aims in terms of yield and longevity risk. What does an ‘innovation budget’ look like within a large superannuation fund and who sponsors it?

Second, we encourage funds to ‘take their innovation temperature’ by working through their ‘status quo thinking traps’.

We identify five traps to avoid to encourage better innovation.

1. Risk aversion or blame culture – how powerful is the fund’s member-centric culture in driving a good idea forward? Is there individual aversion to change, a lack of reward or a perceived penalty for sponsoring new ideas?

2. ‘Status quo’ roles, responsibilities and resourcing – every superannuation fund has built a ‘value chain’ designed to deliver retirement dollars to members’ accounts. Across this value chain, are the fund’s roles designed to simply ‘keep up with business’ or given the bandwidth to generate and test new ideas?

3. Functional silos – who in a fund is tasked with identifying opportunities to redesign, unbundle and reconfigure across the value chain? These should be people with industry-wide perspectives, not focused on deliverables within functional silos.

4. Fund size – corporate literature on change identifies size as an inhibitor of genuine innovation, not an enabler. Scale entrenches status quo thinking and new ideas are viewed more cautiously as ‘risking’ the existing business. Large superannuation funds have criticised disruptors like Spaceship and Zuper, but how open are large funds to the lessons these disruptors can teach them?

5. Industry groupthink – APRA-regulated funds can point to a healthy level of industry-wide dialogue and information-sharing, but does this really evidence a collegiate, ideas-generating culture and a commitment to continually evolve? One could argue that, instead, it engenders a collective status quo which is a safe space for large funds to occupy.

New ideas acted on can have an ‘annuity’ value delivering over and over again, and this value compounds over the long-term horizon in which superannuation funds operate. Given the high-stakes, long-term, society-wide mission of superannuation, the ‘cost’ of new ideas that disappoint must, surely, pale in comparison to the opportunity cost of genuine innovation that never sees the light of day.

The Productivity Commission, in airing (again) the need for the superannuation industry to be genuinely innovative, was onto something important. Funds should take their cue, and demand that regulators offer more than just lip service in helping funds rise to the innovation challenge.

 

Raewyn Williams is Managing Director of Research at Parametric Australia, a US-based investment advisor. This material is for general information only and does not consider the circumstances of any investor. Additional information is available at parametricportfolio.com.au.

 

RELATED ARTICLES

SMSF technology isn’t standing still

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Who's next? Discounts on LICs force managers to pivot

The boards and managers of six high-profile LICs, frustrated by their shares trading at large discounts to asset value, have embarked on radical strategies to fix the problems. Will they work?

Four simple things to do right now

Markets have recovered in the last six months but most investors remain nervous about the economic outlook. Morningstar analysts provide four quick tips on how to navigate this uncertainty.

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 374

Suddenly, it's the middle of September and we don't hear much about 'snap back' anymore. Now we have 'wind backs' and 'road maps'. Six months ago, I was flying back from Antarctica after two weeks aboard the ill-fated Greg Mortimer cruise ship, and then the world changed. So it's time to take your temperature again. Our survey checks your reaction to recent policies and your COVID-19 responses.

  • 9 September 2020

Reporting season winners and losers in listed property trusts

Many property trust results are better than expected, with the A-REIT sector on a dividend yield of 4.8%. But there's a wide variation by sector and the ability of tenants to pay the rent.

Have stock markets become a giant Ponzi scheme?

A global financial casino has been created where investors ignore realistic valuations in the low growth, high-risk environment. At some point, analysis of fundamental value will be rewarded.

Every SMSF trustee should have an Enduring Power of Attorney

COVID-19 and the events of 2020 show why, more than ever, SMSF trustees need to prepare for the ‘unexpected’ by having an Enduring Power of Attorney in place. A Power of Attorney is not enough.

Latest Updates

Weekly Editorial

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 376

The US tech index, the NASDAQ, peaked on 2 September 2020 at 12,058 and closed three weeks later at 10,793. On the same days, Apple hit US$137.98 and then fell to US$110.08. These falls of 10% and 20% seem high but both were simply returning to their early August levels. It's hardly a rout when a month's gains are given back. The bigger issue is whether such a stock correction will scare off the retail 'Robinhood' traders.

  • 24 September 2020
Interviews

Interview Series: What’s new in a global innovation fund?

For many global tech companies, COVID has boosted their revenues and pushed share prices to all-time highs. We are on the cusp of amazing technical advances and there are plenty of new opportunities.

Shares

Five reasons why Tesla is the everything bubble embodied

As fewer professionals actively research the merits of a company’s prospects, stocks become disproportionately driven by capital flows. Prices disconnect from fundamentals and there's no better example than Tesla.

Retirement

Three retirement checks for when you have enough

Not every retiree needs to gun for higher returns, but a conservative portfolio can court its own risks, especially with bond rates so low. But some retirees prefer to settle for a lower income.

Shares

Hide and seek: the FX impact on global equity investments

As more Australians tilt their investments to global equities, they often overlook the exchange rate risk and fees. The move from US57 cents to US73 cents in six months shows the unhedged impact.

Economy

When America sneezes, the world catches a ...

The recovery from COVID-19 is looking more like a K-shape, with some companies doing well while others struggle. The pandemic seems more akin to a black swan, exogenous shock than a structural downturn.

Retirement

How the age pension helps retirees cope with losses

It's often overlooked how wealthier couples can fall back on the age pension if a market loss hits their portfolio. The reassurance is never greater than in a financial (and now epidemic) crisis.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2020 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use.
Any general advice or class service prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, has been prepared by without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. Refer to our Financial Services Guide (FSG) for more information. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.