Why benchmarking will be good for super funds


Your Future Your Super reforms have recently resulted in strong public debate. Here's why the proposed introduction of benchmarks for super funds may help further strengthen Australia's superannuation system.



Scoreboards can tell uncomfortable stories. Just ask the Australian cricket team.

But keeping score is important - not just in sport but across many activities whether it's a personal best on your 5km run, profit results from a business, progress towards your savings goal or how your super fund is performing.

The importance of Australia's superannuation system in meeting the retirement needs of Australians naturally – and deservedly - drives debate when major reforms are proposed. So it is no surprise that the recent package of reforms known as Your Future Your Super (YFYS) has resulted in strong public debate following the release of exposure drafts of legislation in 2020.

While it is not up for debate that the Australian super system is world class in many ways, there is always room for improvement, evidenced by the Productivity Commission's 2019 findings and APRA's fund heat map.

The challenge is developing a scoring system that provides a straightforward comparison of a super fund's performance.

In discussions like these it is hoped members' interests are paramount but that cannot be presumed when some recommendations threaten the viability and very existence of some organisations. In any race, self-interest takes a lot of beating.

One of the key recommendations for reform is a process to benchmark super funds objectively against their own stated asset allocation.

The notion of benchmarking investment portfolios against a market index is hardly radical.

Every fund manager managing money for superannuation funds is already benchmarked to several decimal places on their performance against market indices either by asset consultants, the funds themselves or indeed by a fund manager's own performance attribution process. Thus some of the arguments against the proposed benchmarking methodology seem disingenuous.

For example, while it should be acknowledged that the proposed methodology is not a perfect match - particularly in areas like infrastructure and private equity where finding a listed index equivalent is certainly challenging - using a listed index as a proxy by its very nature ought to provide a performance head start to unlisted asset classes courtesy of the expected illiquidity premium.

You only have to look back to 2014 when the My Super reforms were implemented to debunk the argument that the benchmarking methodology would drive super funds into "index hugging" behaviour. Back then, proponents of that argument were certain that the sky would fall in on high-performing active managers when the reforms were introduced but as we have since observed, nothing of the sort eventuated. And in any case, failure to keep pace with an indexed implementation of a fund's own benchmark over a period of seven years or more surely casts questions over the utility of incurring the extra costs of an active strategy in the first place.

The bottom line is that super fund trustees do need to have confidence that their investment strategy will outperform or match a passive benchmark set against their own publicly stated asset allocation. That hardly seems a draconian approach – especially given the 0.5% per annum margin that the benchmarking proposal permits over a period of at least 7 years.

Perhaps the argument is less about the benchmarking itself and more about the consequences of failing the test – in particular the impact on new contributions/members.

And what is unclear is how many funds would fail the test. Recent Vanguard analysis that applies the proposed methodology to the last six years of MySuper data suggests approximately 15-20% of funds are on a path to underperform on the first cut, absent a turnaround in their 2021 performance. But while underperformers would certainly be challenged, perhaps this would encourage more discussion of mergers where greater scale could lower costs to members and speed up the current slower than expected pace of fund mergers/rationalisation over the last decade.

None of this should come as a surprise to anyone. APRA and various political leaders from both sides have long cajoled and nudged the industry towards consolidation and efficiency. But the glacial pace of change – and the inefficiencies and costs to members identified by the Productivity Commission - will likely continue without a circuit breaker that provides a real incentive for the industry to get its house in order.

Detailed discussions about implementation aside, just as cricket players recognise that time spent in practice eventually shows up on the scoreboard and can help deliver better results for their supporters, surely the industry understands just how much performance and cost benchmarking will drive positive change across the entire superannuation business chain.



By Robin Bowerman
Head of Corporate Affairs, Vanguard Australia
23 Feb, 2021



Any advice contained in this website is of a general nature only and does not take into account your circumstances or needs. You must decide if this information is suitable to your personal situation or seek advice.

Rolanda has been my financial adviser for 20 years. I have always found her to be highly intelligent, knowledgeable and professional in her career. Rolanda is accessible at all times and patiently explains terms that I do not fully understand. I can highly recommend Rolanda and it is a pleasure to do so. I do this with the utmost confidence. Marcia Montgomery (Retiree – home duties and ex-clerk with Water Board)
I retired Oct 2012, and seeking Financial Advice for my retirement funds, I decided to have Rolanda look after my financial affairs, and so happy I did. Since my retirement I am extremely comfortable with Rolanda’s advice, experience and strategies and the returns on my investments. Rolanda is my "Breath of Fresh Air" at this stage of my life and she makes herself available 24/7 should you need to talk with her. Steve Hoad (Ground Engineer, Qantas)
In 1997 I left Energy Australia and decided to join Rolanda Adams Financial Services for the financial support and advice that I would need into the future. That decision has proved a very good one and I am still with Rolanda who has given me advice and friendship over those many years. The advice given has ensured that my investments have been protected and the major losses, of some, during the GFC was not felt by me unduly. Rolanda and her team are very easy to contact at any time and one is always received in a most professional manner. I would be most happy to recommend Rolanda Adams Financial Services to all who need financial services. Graham Fleeton (Manager, Property Insurance Group Energy Australia (Ausgrid))
Rolanda has been my Adviser for the past 18 years. Through her wide industry experience and professional expertise she has ensured the sound development and ongoing management of my investments. Her advice has invariably been sound, timely and entirely tuned to meet my personal needs in retirement. She has a friendly, engaging manner and is always readily available to address any of my concerns. I have no hesitation in recommending her. Neil O'Keeffe (Chief Inspector (retired), Australian Customs Service)

© 2021 Rolanda Adams Financial Services Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. Site by PlannerWeb.