Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 387

Three reasons why super performance test fails

This year’s Budget included the Your Future, Your Super (YFYS) reform package, which will have a significant impact on superannuation. One reform, a performance test, has proven highly controversial. A performance test sounds like good policy to protect consumers, so why is it proving so controversial?

This article uses some of the findings from a collaborative research effort between The Conexus Institute and five leading industry consultants: Frontier, JANA, Mercer, Rice Warner and Willis Towers Watson. The detailed research (papers and models) can be accessed here.

The performance test explained

The YFYS performance test works as follows:

  • Over a rolling 8-year period the performance of each fund is compared against the performance of a tailored benchmark based off that fund’s strategic (i.e. long-term) asset allocation through time. The benchmarks are all public listed market indices. This could be considered implementation performance, capturing the sum of how well each portfolio position performed against a benchmark as well as the performance of any short-term (tactical) asset allocation calls.
  • Initially if a fund fails the test (underperforms by more than 0.5% pa), it needs to write to its members to advise it has been identified as an underperformer, and provide details of a to-be-developed Government website which will detail performance and fees for the universe of super funds.
  • If the fund fails for a second consecutive year, it is no longer able to accept new members until the fund passes the performance test. The fund can continue to accept contributions from existing members.

This sounds reasonable, so what is the problem?

The concept of a performance test is good policy. Done well, it helps protect disengaged members from sub-standard outcomes from super. Government and Treasury are simply following a recommendation made by the Productivity Commission.

But the devil is in the detail: the performance test has important shortcomings. Additionally, there are concerns that the way the test is applied will likely leave some consumers worse off.

We found three main issues with the test, summarised in the following diagram.

(1), (2), and (3) combine to make for an ineffective performance test.

Here's how to understand (2) better: implementation is an important part of total performance but the asset allocation decisions made by funds are just as, if not more, important. Yet the test ignores the performance of asset allocation decisions. To illustrate, if your fund had made the decision to have 10% more allocated to global shares than to Australian shares over the last 10 years, this would have added more than 0.4% pa to performance. A performance test should capture this component of performance.

The benchmarking challenges noted in (3) impact the assessment of many asset classes including private equity, unlisted property and infrastructure, credit, inflation-linked bonds, and the entire universe of alternative investments.

For example, unlisted property is benchmarked against listed property and there can be huge dispersion in performance between the two sectors which may unduly impact the performance test result at a particular point of time.

In some cases, we calculated that the test would have a very low likelihood of correctly identifying poor performers (likelihood levels akin to a coin toss) while having a reasonable probability of mistakenly identifying good performers as poor.

Finally, none of this acknowledges changes that funds have made to improve themselves, sometimes in response to issues raised by APRA.

Ineffective plus undesirable outcomes

Not only is the test likely to prove ineffective, but we anticipate a range of undesirable outcomes. We summarise these into three categories:

  1. We believe the test will distort the way that funds will manage their investment portfolios. This test will likely be binding compared to other policy and regulatory tools such as APRA’s Heatmaps, the Outcomes Assessment Test and the sole purpose test. The flaws in the test mean it does not align well with the broad investment management principles of focusing on total returns and diversification.
  2. We believe consumers will be confronted with a range of complex and potentially conflicting information. Many will find making a choice difficult and the heavily disengaged may be left in impaired super funds and experience worse performance (because the fund is further impaired).
  3. The focus by industry on the performance test may deter fund mergers. The ‘senior’ fund may not want some of the assets, a membership profile in outflow, nor the distraction that comes with merging with another fund.

Agents, politics, and policy

Unfortunately, superannuation has become highly politicised and some observers view the industry as self-interested agents. Yet strong engagement can contribute to better policy, while poor engagement increases the risk of policy mistakes. Effective engagement requires the trust between policymakers and industry to be strong. Undoubtedly there is room for improvement, but I see both policymakers and industry aligned in their focus on improving member outcomes.

It is good to see that there will be consultation on the performance test and hopefully it is constructive and positive.

Developing an effective performance test is a great opportunity to improve superannuation outcomes for consumers.

 

David Bell is Executive Director of The Conexus Institute, a not-for-profit research institution focused on improving retirement outcomes for Australians. This article does not constitute financial advice.

 

2 Comments
Jeremy Dawson
December 12, 2020

Is this requirement (to not underperform by more than 0.5% pa) before or after accounting for what my fund calls
"Total investment fees and costs and transaction costs"?

If before - then it's not a good criterion for investors. If after - then it makes it difficult for a fund to not underperform stock market indices (my fund says Total investment fees and costs and transaction costs are 0.46%)

Ramani
December 09, 2020

DC Super has relied on robust compliance processes (internal, external audits, prudential reporting, disclosures, conflict management and convergence between good performance and inflows) and many motherhoods (fiduciary interests, outsourced and out-of-mind and enforcement that conflates actions with outcomes). This has not worked on disengaged members who when interested find the rules indecipherable. Hence the move towards performance mesaurement, naming and shaming and effective delicensing.
We moved away from the model that promised performance (called DB). For good reasons. Is this a back-door reentry?
This article highlights how great intentions get stuck. Ignoring risk prferences, changing personal needs and potential for ponzi scams would simply raise expectations without altering the likelihood and impact of type 1 and type 2 errors. Makes the fall more traumatic.
The elephant in the room? Governments and regulators getting too close to fund performance exposes them to compensation claims for policy and prudential malfeasance. The bill will be picked up by the taxpayer who already underwrites super through tax subsidies hoping for the mirage of lower age pension outlays.
Not unlike the state getting too close to citizens' health by getting involved in Body Mass Index control. Great but counter-productive.

 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

Consumers need an effective super performance test

The current super system fails the poor

Five proposed changes to superannuation

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Meg on SMSFs: Clearing up confusion on the $3 million super tax

There seems to be more confusion than clarity about the mechanics of how the new $3 million super tax is supposed to work. Here is an attempt to answer some of the questions from my previous work on the issue. 

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 566 with weekend update

Here are 10 rules for staying happy and sharp as we age, including socialise a lot, never retire, learn a demanding skill, practice gratitude, play video games (specific ones), and be sure to reminisce.

  • 27 June 2024

The secrets of Australia’s Berkshire Hathaway

Washington H. Soul Pattinson is an ASX top 50 stock with one of the best investment track records this country has seen. Yet, most Australians haven’t heard of it, and the company seems to prefer it that way.

Australian housing is twice as expensive as the US

A new report suggests Australian housing is twice as expensive as that of the US and UK on a price-to-income basis. It also reveals that it’s cheaper to live in New York than most of our capital cities.

Overcoming the fear of running out of money in retirement

There’s an epidemic in Australia that has nothing to do with COVID-19, the flu, or the respiratory syncytial virus. This one is called FORO, or the fear of running out of money in retirement, and it's a growing problem.

The catalyst for a LICs rebound

The discounts on listed investment vehicles are at historically wide levels. There are lots of reasons given, including size and liquidity, yet there's a better explanation for the discounts, and why a rebound may be near.

Latest Updates

Financial planning

Our finances should enable and not dictate our lives

Most people would prefer to have more money than less of it. But at what point do the trappings of wealth and success start to outweigh the benefits of striving for more?

Economy

This vital yet "forgotten" indicator of inflation holds good news

Financial commentators seem to have forgotten the leading cause of inflation: growth in the supply of money. Warren Bird explains the link and explores where it suggests inflation is headed.

Shares

Emerging market equities are ripe with opportunity

Emerging markets offer compelling value compared to history and the stretched valuations of developed market equities. Investors can benefit from three big tailwinds, but only if they are selective.

Taxation

Tomorrow's taxpayers pay for today's policy mistakes

Less affordable housing isn't the only thing set to weigh on Australia's younger generations. If new solutions for pension deficits and the use of resource revenue aren't found quickly, tomorrow's taxpayer will foot the bill.

How would a switch to nuclear affect electricity prices?

The Coalition's plan to build seven nuclear power stations in 15 years faces scrutiny due to high costs and slow construction. And it is unlikely the investment would yield cheaper energy for Australian households and industry.

Strategy

Reader feedback from our 2024 survey

Articles that are easy to understand, quick to read, and credible; being able to engage via the comments section; and keeping Firstlinks free and independent are just some of the features valued by our readers.

Strategy

Have your say on Firstlinks and the topics we cover

We’d love to hear your thoughts on Firstlinks and how we can make it better for you. If you’d like to help us out in a just a couple of minutes, please take our short survey.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2024 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. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. 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.