Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 109

Grattan’s Super Savings flawed but essential reading

Following on from the Grattan Institute’s ‘Super Sting’ (of which I was somewhat critical – see Grattan and the fuss about Chile’s pensions), the follow-up paper 'Super Savings' is worth a read. At a minimum it should be reflectively read by the executive and trustee of every super fund in Australia. Valid and, given my role at a large super fund, sometimes humbling points are made. However now is not the time to proceed to a default tender process. Indeed if default tenders were implemented now it could damage the retirement outcomes of Australians.

What does Super Savings say?

The essence of Super Savings is that the existing industry is inefficient from a cost perspective and that a range of measures need to be implemented to reduce costs. The key efficiency measures recommended are:

  • The government should run a tender to select funds for default superannuation
  • Government should take steps to slow the creation of new excess accounts
  • Encourage less efficient funds to merge with efficient ones
  • Introduce measures to strongly encourage the selection of lower cost products in the choice part of the superannuation market.

The Grattan Institute estimates that these initiatives could save over $1.5 billion per year.

In-depth cost analysis

Super Savings finds that administration costs are too high, because there are too many accounts, too many super funds and many charge high administration fees (compared to what Grattan labels ‘lean funds’). Some areas identified as sources of excessive cost are marketing and sales costs, some member communications, and overly diverse product lines.

This is where a system review is most confronting for those in the superannuation industry. Faced with competition for members, funds spend more to retain and attract members to ensure a stable fund base to support the planned implementation of value-adding services. Without a stable membership it is hard to commit to projects with a capital expense, examples being MySuper and the Stronger Super reforms. So at a fund level, marketing and sales are justifiable, but when we step back to an industry or system level, Grattan highlights the negative impact of these costs on the Australian public.

The Super Savings report also claims that investment fees are too high and that active management does not add value. In my article on Grattan’s first report I suggested that it is difficult for people with little funds management industry experience to understand all the nuances of the investment fee / fund performance debate. To Grattan’s credit this paper provides much more analysis and I can see they have considered seminal academic literature and consulted with the private sector. However the debate around investment fees and outcomes is far more complex than they have presented. It seems that when an outsider looks at the issue of investment fees the recommendation is to head towards a passive solution. This is because many other issues are not considered, simple examples in this case being risk reduction and the quality of passive benchmarks. Unfortunately this is the case with Grattan’s report.

Is low cost the solution? A critique of Super Savings

All else being equal, should a reduction in costs improve the retirement outcomes of Australians, as claimed by Grattan? I don’t believe so, at least at the present time. Indeed a focus on cost reduction could lead to worse outcomes for superannuants. There is a productivity and cost efficiency persuasion to this report: the primary report author, Jim Minifie, is the Productivity Growth Director at Grattan. However are the conditions right for implementing productivity and efficiency reforms in superannuation? Consider the following:

  • Though the Superannuation Guarantee has been around for nearly 25 years, the retirement savings industry is still not fully formed. This may sound strange but consider the lack of a clear direction, changing regulations, and the more recent focus on longevity issues and it becomes easier to accept. This is the same for retirement systems in most countries around the world (the exceptions being the well-established collective systems we see in some European countries). Our post-retirement solutions are embryonic. It is important that these solutions interact efficiently with our costly Age Pension system. What is not well understood is that the design of the post-retirement solution will impact upon the optimal design of our accumulation strategies. The complexity, technology, people and creativity required to create the wonderful fully formed whole-of-life solution that Australians deserve is significant. The solution is unclear – indeed there may be a number of good solutions. Would we reach these solutions and have the necessary discovery process if the focus switched to one of pure cost reduction? The opportunity cost of an inefficiently designed system could easily exceed the cost savings of implementing cost efficiencies at too early a point in time. Recent regulatory reviews such as the Super System (‘Cooper’) Review and the Financial System (‘Murray’) Inquiry failed to address key issues which could have guided and accelerated the development of post-retirement solutions (see Has the FSI missed the elephant in the room?). In a report where ‘fees’ and ‘returns’ are mentioned prolifically, ‘mortality’, ‘longevity’ and ‘post-retirement’ are not mentioned once.

  • The Grattan Institute focuses on the core services required of super funds in coming to their recommendations. This assumes that all other non-core services are provided effectively and efficiently by either government or the private sector. Consider the example of financial education. Around Australia and the world, financial literacy levels are appallingly low. Australian schools do not have mandated financial literacy programs and question marks remain as to whether the Government has effectively addressed the problem. (In Australia, ASIC has a National Financial Literacy Strategy and with Financial Literacy Australia, they have projects to improve financial literacy, but they announced in late 2014 that the MoneySmart Week initiative will be discontinued). The cost of financial illiteracy is high but difficult to measure: financially illiterate people are much more likely to be liquidity-constrained, overindebted, and poor (see A sombre reflection on financial literacy). Many super funds work hard to improve the financial literacy levels of their members. Yet services such as this are likely to be viewed as not having a direct benefit by Grattan, partly because the undoubted benefits are difficult to measure.

  • Nationwide default plans have strong application if all members are generic. This is not the case: for instance members differ by work pattern, wealth path and occupation. A generic plan could have huge opportunity costs on members who are not ‘average’. A simple example is occupation. There exists great dispersion of insurance costs for members across different occupations, yet insurance contracts are typically determined at a fund level. A fund which blends members by occupation may face significant member equity issues associated with cross-subsidisation. This is just one example of the costs of treating individuals generically.


The Grattan Institute strongly challenges the super industry to have a good look at itself and justify the fees and added value provided to members. Unfortunately I think it applies a productivity focus to the superannuation industry in absence of recognition of the crucial stage of development the industry is at (and one which previous regulatory reviews failed to provide the necessary guidance to accelerate). I am not confident that Grattan has considered these challenges sufficiently in its analysis (where not a single mention of the words ‘mortality’, ‘longevity’ and ‘post-retirement’ occurs) and I feel it makes potentially incorrect assumptions that some of the highly valuable services provided by super funds, such as financial literacy, will be adequately provided elsewhere. It is too early, and ultimately damaging, to implement the most impactful recommendation of a default tender process. However there is little a rational person could say against recommendations (2) to (4) above. The prospect of (1) in the future should exist to keep efficiency front of mind for the industry. There will likely be a time when the default process outlined is appropriate, but let’s reconsider that when the crucial issue of post-retirement solutions has been worked through.


David Bell is Chief Investment Officer at AUSCOAL Super. He is working towards a PhD at University of New South Wales. The views contained in this article are those of the author and not AUSCOAL Super.



Five challenges for post-retirement products

Grattan and the fuss about Chile’s pensions

Three retirement checks for when you have enough


Most viewed in recent weeks

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

House prices surge but falls are common and coming

We tend to forget that house prices often fall. Direct lending controls are more effective than rate rises because macroprudential limits affect the volume of money for housing leaving business rates untouched.

Survey responses on pension eligibility for wealthy homeowners

The survey drew a fantastic 2,000 responses with over 1,000 comments and polar opposite views on what is good policy. Do most people believe the home should be in the age pension asset test, and what do they say?

100 Aussies: five charts on who earns, pays and owns

Any policy decision needs to recognise who is affected by a change. It pays to check the data on who pays taxes, who owns assets and who earns the income to ensure an equitable and efficient outcome.

Three good comments from the pension asset test article

With articles on the pensions assets test read about 40,000 times, 3,500 survey responses and thousands of comments, there was a lot of great reader participation. A few comments added extra insights.

The sorry saga of housing affordability and ownership

It is hard to think of any area of widespread public concern where the same policies have been pursued for so long, in the face of such incontrovertible evidence that they have failed to achieve their objectives.

Latest Updates


$1 billion and counting: how consultants maximise fees

Despite cutbacks in public service staff, we are spending over a billion dollars a year with five consulting firms. There is little public scrutiny on the value for money. How do consultants decide what to charge?

Investment strategies

Two strong themes and companies that will benefit

There are reason to believe inflation will stay under control, and although we may see a slowing in the global economy, two companies will benefit from the themes of 'Stable Compounders' and 'Structural Winners'.

Financial planning

Reducing the $5,300 upfront cost of financial advice

Many financial advisers have left the industry because it costs more to produce advice than is charged as an up-front fee. Advisers are valued by those who use them while the unadvised don’t see the need to pay.

Investment strategies

Slowing global trade not the threat investors fear

Investors ask whether global supply chains were stretched too far and too complex, and following COVID, is globalisation dead? New research suggests the impact on investment returns will not be as great as feared.


Many people misunderstand what life expectancy means

Life expectancy numbers are often interpreted as the likely maximum age of a person but that is incorrect. Here are three reasons why the odds are in favor of people outliving life expectancy estimates.

Investment strategies

Wealth doesn’t equal wisdom for 'sophisticated' investors

'Sophisticated investors' can be offered securities without the usual disclosure requirements given to everyday investors, but far more people now qualify than was ever intended. Many are far from sophisticated.

Investment strategies

Is the golden era for active fund managers ending?

Most active fund managers are the beneficiaries of a confluence of favourable events. As future strong returns look challenging, passive is rising and new investors do their own thing, a golden age may be closing.



© 2021 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

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 ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). 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.

Website Development by Master Publisher.