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. 

Click to enlarge

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

Check pension outcomes when making a will

Super complex: the advice gift keeps on giving

Lending policies can spoil good SMSF strategies

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Are you caught in the ‘retirement trap’?

Our retirement savings system is supposed to encourage financial independence but there is a ‘Retirement Trap’ due to the reduction of age pension entitlements as assets and income rise.

The power of letting winners run

Handling extreme winners is a complex task. Conventional wisdom such as “you never go broke taking a profit” often leaves a lot of money on the table as strong growth stocks continue to run.

Tony Togher on why cash isn’t just cash

An active manager of cash and fixed interest funds can achieve higher returns than the cash rate through a selection of other securities while managing both liquidity and income for clients.

NAB hybrid: one says buy, one says sell, you decide

Differences of opinion make a market, and hybrid specialists disagree on the likelihood that NAB will call one of its hybrids early. It makes a major difference to the expected return on NABHA.

Watch your SMSF’s annual return this year

The best way to preserve your SMSF’s favoured status is to make sure the fund’s annual return reaches the ATO on time. There are new rules this year that every SMSF trustee should know.

Worshipping at the altar of alternative assets

Investors worried about an overvalued sharemarket and low interest rates on term deposits and bonds are focusing on alternatives. What are they and how are they used by leading asset allocators?

Latest Updates

Interviews

Kunal Kapoor on different paths to investor success

The Morningstar CEO on democratising investing, why saving in your youth is crucial, and why most investors care more about paying off their debts than comparing their results against benchmarks.

Investment strategies

Do sin stocks really give your portfolio the edge?

Should sin stocks, those companies who engage in activities that are considered unethical or immoral, be excluded from a portfolio, or would this compromise potential performance?

Economy

What is the likely effect of COVID-19 on the Australian economy?

Our close links to China mean the impact of the virus could tip the local economy into recession and certain sectors such as resources, education and travel will be harder hit than others.

Insurance

Poor pricing of life insurance products and the impact on Australians

The use of discounted pricing by insurers to attract new business is unsustainable and leaves existing policyholders on higher premiums for what is essentially the same product.

Retirement

Spotting signs of trouble in a retirement portfolio

Do you risk paying a lot of tax in accumulation phase? Or, if you're in retirement phase, do you face the risk of outliving your asset pool? Two key things to consider in the low-rate world of today.

Sponsors

Alliances