Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 223

New role for outcomes test and member goals

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving Accountability and Member Outcomes in Superannuation) Bill 2017 proposes to expand the existing scale test of performance against costs for members to an outcomes test. This will require superannuation trustees to determine, on an annual basis, whether the fund’s MySuper products are meeting the clients’ best interests. 

Many of these questions apply to SMSF trustees who are managing their own superannuation funds. 

The intent of the change is to allow APRA to assess the overall governance and performance of default funds. APRA has advised what needs to be addressed but not ‘the how’. Trustees will need to develop their own framework. 

Is there a need for the change?

To respond to this question, we need to answer the following two questions:
1. Has the scale test achieved what it was set out to achieve?
2. What should an outcomes test do differently?

What should an outcomes test do differently? 

Some cynics say the scale test has failed. In the main, the scale test assesses performance and fees, seeking to prove a correlation between these and the size of the fund. However, in this case, size doesn’t always matter. Many small funds have proven the test wrong, consistently demonstrating good returns and low fees. 

What should an outcomes test do differently? 

The focus of the outcomes test is on sustainability, which in my opinion is a much better measure of a fund’s performance against costs to members. Ultimately its aim is to have funds determine what is in the best interest for their members and test the sustainability of this model. 

In reality, most members rely on their employers to make the important decision when it comes to choosing their superannuation fund. But, superannuation is not most employers’ core business. So, how are they to know what is in the best interest of their employees? This question will become more important if the proposed changes to default fund status are legislated. Regardless of any new regulatory impositions though, all members should receive what’s in their best interest, but many funds, regardless of size, have struggled to define it. 

How can a fund define best interest? 

Firstly, funds need to define the most important goals for the members to achieve. In other words, what outcomes would the funds’ members like as a result of their experience with the fund? Each fund has different cohorts of members, so this definition of goals needs to be done at the member level, rather than at an overall fund level. 

Funds then need to collect information that tells them whether the services, products and experiences offered are having the desired impact on its members. Is the fund making a difference in the lives of the members it serves and does it really know its members? Funds often say “we know our members better than anyone.” While this may be true, how does a fund support this bold statement? 

The next step is for funds to define the strategy needed to meet these goals. The scale test drove a pattern of including growth in funds’ strategies, as there was a fear of not being at scale. Under the new outcomes test, strategies should be about ensuring the fund will continue to be sustainable and achieve the best interests of its members as previously defined. This may not always include growth. 

Finally, funds need to set measurable metrics to support these goals. This is where funds need to be honest with themselves about future sustainability. 

There is no single approach to a best interest assessment and APRA has not defined this. Funds will need to develop their own policy and practices, which reflect the specific circumstances of the fund and its members. It should be based on what the fund’s members value as far as possible. 

How to conduct an outcomes assessment 

Funds will need to evaluate how well they have achieved the defined goals for their members. Have they delivered what they set out to deliver, keeping in mind the different cohorts of members? 

From there, funds should use the results to improve the experience. This is where funds may need to make the hard decisions. If goals have not achieved their desired outcome, the fund must understand why and determine the next steps. What can be done to fix it? And, where things have worked, could the fund be doing more? 

Can we learn from our global counterparts? 

Around the world, regulators are steering in the same direction when it comes to measuring funds’ performance against costs to members. However, the UK seems to be the most advanced, with similar thinking and the imposition by the UK Pension Regulator of a legal duty to assess value. The UK schemes are required to carry out an assessment at least annually, that focusing on the value provided by the scheme for the costs paid by members across the preceding year, and the influence this could have on future outcomes for those members. 

The UK regulator has also issued an illustrative example to the Pension Schemes, highlighting the areas that need to be captured, considered and assessed in order to assess value properly.

Best interest duty test dominates

Whatever approach is chosen, one key test has to be met – the best interest test. Funds should document the steps taken and be prepared to demonstrate the execution of a proper process and provide an explanation of how and why conclusions have been reached. 

 

Maree Pallisco is the EY National Superannuation leader. The views expressed in this article are the views of the author, not Ernst & Young. The article provides general information, does not constitute advice and should not be relied on as such. Professional advice should be sought prior to any action being taken in reliance on any of the information. Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

 

RELATED ARTICLES

Minister Jane Hume on SMSFs and superannuation reform

Check pension outcomes when making a will

Super complex: the advice gift keeps on giving

banner

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

Superannuation

The 'Contrast Principle' used by super fund test failures

Rather than compare results against APRA's benchmark, large super funds which failed the YFYS performance test are using another measure such as a CPI+ target, with more favourable results to show their members.

Property

RBA switched rate priority on house prices versus jobs

RBA Governor, Philip Lowe, says that surging house prices are not as important as full employment, but a previous Governor, Glenn Stevens, had other priorities, putting the "elevated level of house prices" first.

Investment strategies

Disruptive innovation and the Tesla valuation debate

Two prominent fund managers with strongly opposing views and techniques. Cathie Wood thinks Tesla is going to US$3,000, Rob Arnott says it's already a bubble at US$750. They debate valuing growth and disruption.

Shares

4 key materials for batteries and 9 companies that will benefit

Four key materials are required for battery production as we head towards 30X the number of electric cars. It opens exciting opportunities for Australian companies as the country aims to become a regional hub.

Shares

Why valuation multiples fail in an exponential world

Estimating the value of a company based on a multiple of earnings is a common investment analysis technique, but it is often useless. Multiples do a poor job of valuing the best growth businesses, like Microsoft.

Shares

Five value chains driving the ‘transition winners’

The ability to adapt to change makes a company more likely to sustain today’s profitability. There are five value chains plus a focus on cashflow and asset growth that the 'transition winners' are adopting.

Superannuation

Halving super drawdowns helps wealthy retirees most

At the start of COVID, the Government allowed early access to super, but in a strange twist, others were permitted to leave money in tax-advantaged super for another year. It helped the wealthy and should not be repeated.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2021 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 ‘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.