Superannuation Discussion + market volatility

[Mr_Tee]

The entire “system” has been made to appear, and has been constructed to actually be, confusing, hard to navigate and complex. Unnecessarily in most parts in my view. And the “industry” perpetuates the notion of it being a “complex system” so they can not only charge excessive fees directly to fund members but also hide fees away and out of sight to “help members navigate the complexities of superannuation”.

 

[tgh]

Over the years a simple concept of saving for retirement has been fiddled , politicised and "enhanced" so much that the annual return
for even a simple smsf like ours requires a lot of professional input , partly because of the complexity and partly because of the audit requirements
to ensure we do not keep a cent more than we are entitled to...

 

[cove]

We have stayed with Esuper and it has worked well.

 

[SydneySwan]

I have been with the same industry super balanced fund for 20 years and it has served me very well. I won’t be moving into an smsf anytime soon.

 

[Pushka]

I have been with the same industry super balanced fund for 20 years and it has served me very well. I won’t be moving into an smsf anytime soon.

Yes. We moved from our SMSF just around Covid. SMSF served us well, bought and sold a block of land in it that was very successful, shares - I lost the will to keep actively researching. Went with HESTA to start and that was fine until they did their thing back in March and we changed immediately to Aus Super.

HESTA has had limitations just placed on their operations through APRA decisions on what they did in April for 6 weeks. I contacted every authority I thought relevant back in March trying to prevent HESTA from their changeover. Didn't get one response. APRA only acted after the damage was done to the members. How poor is that!

APRA imposes additional licence conditions on HESTA | APRA

APRA has imposed additional licence conditions on H.E.S.T Australia Ltd (HESTA) to address concerns regarding HESTA’s risk management and board governance during its recent transition of outsourced administration providers.

www.apra.gov.au

 

[cove]

I don't like where industry funds get fined and the investors pay the fines rather than the fund directors. That should change.

 

[Pushka]

I don't like where industry funds get fined and the investors pay the fines rather than the fund directors. That should change.

Totally agree that rankles. Directors cut.

 

[Brissy1]

I don't like where industry funds get fined and the investors pay the fines rather than the fund directors. That should change.

Particularly when so directly related as above..."APRA has identified deficiencies in HESTA’s board governance", and the HESTA Chairperson is on the Governance Committee .
I presume APRA (like Courts) can choose to fine directors personally, but choose not to.

 

[SydneySwan]

I don't like where industry funds get fined and the investors pay the fines rather than the fund directors. That should change.

Let us not single out industry super funds. I don’t like it where companies like Qantas and ANZ and Westpac and CBA , etc get fined and shareholders pay the fines rather than the CEO and the directors.

 

[Quickstatus]

presume APRA (like Courts) can choose to fine directors personally, but choose not to.

They can't anymore than the ACCC can impose fines

The regulatory bodies can only request a fine be imposed by taking a case before the federal Court. It's the Court who imposes the fine

 

[Brissy1]

They can't anymore than the ACCC can impose fines

The regulatory bodies can only request a fine be imposed by taking a case before the federal Court. It's the Court who imposes the fine

So they aren't fines then, it was "payment of an infringement notice"?
Such as this one (of many) https://download.asic.gov.au/media/d1bbccok/infringement-notice-hesta-s02181251.pdf

 

[MELso]

So they aren't fines then, it was "payment of an infringement notice"?
Such as this one (of many) https://download.asic.gov.au/media/d1bbccok/infringement-notice-hesta-s02181251.pdf

Infringement notices are fines by another name (basically, 'cough up or we prosecute').

As the trustees don't seem to have any skin in the game under the current arrangements, because it comes out of members' pockets, they presumably paid. If super funds are being treated like regular companies, this is problematic as the trustees aren't really like company directors (who are voted in by shareholders, meaning it's reasonable if the company gets stung with fines).

 

[Jacques Vert]

Infringement notices are fines by another name (basically, 'cough up or we prosecute').

And paying them is generally not an admission of guilt .

 

[Quickstatus]

So they aren't fines then, it was "payment of an infringement notice"?

As I said they can't impose the fine. It is important to note that an infringement notice is just an allegation of a contravention. They can send a notice and if the entity pays, it does not go to court. Or if there is no payment, it goes to court and the matter is contested

Same as traffic infringement notice - it's an allegation of for example, that you exceeded the speed limit. You can elect not to pay it and elect to go to court.

 

[MELso]

As I said they can't impose the fine. It is important to note that an infringement notice is just an allegation of a contravention. They can send a notice and if the entity pays, it does not go to court. Or if there is no payment, it goes to court and the matter is contested

Same as traffic infringement notice - it's an allegation of for example, that you exceeded the speed limit. You can elect not to pay it and elect to go to court.

Semantics much?

In the legal lingo, one is a court-imposed pecuniary penalty while one is a pecuniary penalty paid as a consequence of receiving an infringement notice.

But both examples are 'fines' though in the popular lingo.

 

[Quickstatus]

Semantics much?

You might think so, but again there is an important distinction as I've explained above

 

[Brissy1]

You might think so, but again there is an important distinction as I've explained above

So this penalty is not a fine, even though it states "camera detected company fines...the fine will reduce"