Our Super Super System
Investor Insights - Monthly news for investment professionals November 2015

On 19 October 2015, it was announced that Australia had the third best superannuation system in the world. This powerful endorsement in the 2015 Melbourne Mercer Global Pension Index report, highlighted the considerable achievements of our nation in preparing for an aging population. However, coming so soon on the back of the Murray Inquiry into Australian’s financial services system, the report also raised questions about future regulatory reform to enhance our national superannuation system.

In this edition of Investor Insights, we review the history and status of Australia’s superannuation system. We also consider some of the key reform proposals suggested both by the Mercer review and the Murray Inquiry.

History of superannuation in Australia

There are a number of oddities about the Australian superannuation system – not least of which is the name. What we in Australia call superannuation, most of the rest of the world refers to as their pension system.

However, retirement income and superannuation, however described, have been significant themes for the Commonwealth Government since Australia’s federation in 1901. Indeed, the first government pension pre-dates federation, with first NSW, then Victoria and Queensland introducing a means- tested age pension in 1900.

In the decades that followed, various governments introduced a range of schemes intended to fund the retirements of Australians. However, by 1972 only 32% of workers were covered by any sort of superannuation, with the remainder entirely reliant on the aged pension.

The move towards a comprehensive superannuation system really gained momentum from 1983, with the Hawke Government and union “Accord” agreements. Many of the key industry superannuation funds were founded in the mid-1980s. By December 1990, 64% of workers had superannuation coverage and in 1991, Treasurer John Kerin announced the introduction of a “Superannuation Guarantee”. This system required employers to make contributions on behalf of their employees, commencing at 3% and building to 9% in 2002.

Through the 1990s, additional measures were passed, including government co-contributions and ‘choice of fund’ legislation, which allowed employees the opportunity to pick their own superannuation fund. By June 2000, the pool of assets in the superannuation system had grown to $484.2 billion, or 63% of GDP.

The superannuation system today

Today, Australia’s superannuation system is the envy of most the rest of the world. Over the twelve months to 30 June 2015, there was a 9.9% increase in total superannuation assets, which are now an astonishing $2.02 trillion, or 127% of GDP.

Just as interestingly, the composition of the superannuation system is far different to what was envisaged in the early 1990s. Self managed superannuation funds (SMSFs) – once maligned and virtually unknown outside a very small circle of investors, have become the largest single sector of the system, surpassing even the union-linked industry funds and the largely bank-owned retail sector. Former Treasurer and Prime Minister, Paul Keating, one of the key architects of the current system, has frankly acknowledged that no one involved in the establishment of Australia’s modern superannuation system foresaw how popular the ‘DIY’ option would become.

Source: APRA

Melbourne Mercer Global Pension Index

Against that background, it was no surprise to see Australia faring well in the 2015 Melbourne Mercer Global Pension Index. Indeed, of the 25 countries reviewed for the index, Australia came third, marginally behind Denmark and the Netherlands, who were first and second respectively. In their report, which summarised the findings of the review, Mercer reported that Australia’s rating actually fell marginally in 2015 (by 0.3 of a percentage point) for largely statistical reasons. Broadly, however, our system rated strongly for Adequacy, Sustainability and Integrity – the three key measures on which the various systems were rated.

Source: globalpensionindex.com

So where could we do better? Mercer pointed to a number of measures that Australia could take – in particular to ensure that the system becomes more sustainable. These include:

  • Requiring that at least some of the retirement benefit be taken as an income stream;

  • Increasing labour force participation for older workers;

  • Linking the pension age explicitly to average life expectancy; and

  • Increasing the minimum access age to receive benefits.

None of those suggested reforms would be a surprise to those who have followed the national debate on superannuation. However, some are controversial and will require a government willing to expend significant political capital in order to have them implemented. At present, the prevailing view appears to be that member choice is a fundamental and necessary value of the system. After all, the argument goes, if a government is going to require citizens to lock some of their income up for forty years or more, it must allow those investors to have the freedom to choose how those funds are disposed.

The Murray Inquiry Recommendations

This view appears to have played an important role in the Murray Inquiry and its recommendations in relation to the superannuation system. Murray’s recommendations eschew the use of mandatory income requirements and instead focus on establishing basic principles of competition and good governance. Thus, for example, Murray recommends that:

  • The objectives of the superannuation system be agreed upon and enshrined in legislation to ensure that policy proposals remain consistent with those objectives;

  • Require superannuation trustees to have a ‘default’ comprehensive income product for members, similar to the ‘MySuper’ default option for members in the accumulation phase;

  • Ensure that all employees have the ability to choose their own fund (there are provisions in the current Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 that deny some employees the ability to choose the fund under some enterprise agreements and awards; and

  • Ensure that a majority of directors on the boards of corporate trustees are independent and free of conflicts of interest.

What does this mean for SMSFs?

As we have previously written, many of the key criticisms of the SMSF have revolved around alleged over-exposures to property, limited recourse borrowing arrangements (LRBAs – also known as SMSF loans) and under-exposure to overseas assets. Indeed, the Murray Report recommended that LRBAs be prohibited going forward to reduce risk in the system – a recommendation that was rejected by the Government

As we have seen, however, the statistics kept by the Australian Taxation Office simply do not support the argument that SMSFs are unduly exposed to risk on these grounds. Indeed, the more salient topic of discussion for SMSFs is whether they are over-exposed to cash, which – whilst low risk and capital stable, is paying low or negative real returns.

Source: RBA

Areas to watch

So what are the areas to watch in superannuation for investors? Most pertinently, there is continual debate about whether superannuation benefits should be restricted. Comments from the new Treasurer, Scott Morrison, that the superannuation system is for funding retirements, not estate planning, show that this issue is in the Government’s mind. Investors may remember the previous Labour Government’s proposal that the first $100,000 in superannuation income per person (indexed) be tax free and the rest taxed at 15%. Whilst there were a host of administrative difficulties with the specific proposal, the issue has stayed on the table and Opposition Leader Bill Shorten’s current proposal is essentially the same, but with the tax-free threshold lowered to $75,000.

More specifically to SMSFs, the Federal Government has indicated that it will return to review and revisit the issue of LRBAs in three years’ time. Should LRBA numbers grow dramatically, or should system issues of poor conduct by the industry be revealed, further prudential regulatory measures may be adopted.

Australia has much to be proud of in our superannuation system. But that does not mean we can be complacent. Debate about the objectives, governance and regulation of our superannuation is invaluable, but it is critical to ensure that all policy proposals are subject to searching factual and statistical review.

Best regards,

Chris Andrews
Vice President,
Chief Investment Officer

view newsletter in a browser
Ratings And Awards

The above awards and ratings were given to the Pooled Mortgage Option within the La Trobe Financial Credit Fund and may be viewed

La Trobe Financial Asset Management Limited ABN: 27 007 332 363 and AFSL No: 222213 is the issuer and manager of the La Trobe Australian Credit Fund. It is important for you to read the Product Disclosure Statement for the Fund before you make any investment decision. The PDS is available on our website www.latrobefinancial.com or by calling 1800 818 818. You should consider carefully whether or not investing in the Fund is appropriate for you.

- The rates of return from the Fund are not guaranteed and are determined by future revenue of the Fund and may be lower than expected. Investors risk losing some or all of their principal investment. The investment is not a bank deposit.
- Past performance is no guarantee of future performance.
- Withdrawal rights are subject to liquidity and may be delayed or suspended.
- The award and ratings were given to the Pooled Mortgages Option within the La Trobe Australian Credit Fund.
- Any rating is only one factor to be taken into account in deciding to invest.

1. Zenith's "recommended" rating indicates that it has high confidence in the manager meeting its objectives. The Zenith Investment Partners ("Zenith") ABN 60 332 047 314 rating referred to in this document is limited to "General Advice" (as defined by section 766B of Corporations Act 2001) and based solely on the assessment of the investment merits of the financial product on this basis. It is not a specific recommendation to purchase, sell or hold the relevant product(s), and Zenith advises that individual investors should seek their own independent financial advice before investing in this product. To view the relevant research information, please visit www.latrobefinancial.com The rating is subject to change without notice and Zenith has no obligation to update this document following publication. Zenith usually receives a fee for rating the fund manager and product against accepted criteria considered comprehensive and objective.
2. SQM Research - 4 stars to 4.25 stars - superior, suitable for inclusion on most Approved Product Lists. To view the relevant research information, please visit www.latrobefinancial.com This rating will not take into account your, or your clients' objectives, financial situation or needs. It is up to investors to consider whether specific financial products are suitable for your objectives, financial situation or needs. Research houses receive a fee from La Trobe Financial for rating the product.
3. Lipper Leaders Rating Total Return (Score – 5) Lipper Ratings for Total Return reflect funds’ historical return performance relative to peers. The ratings are subject to change every month. The highest 20% of funds in each peer group are named Lipper Leader or a score of 5 for Total Return. Lipper Leader ratings are not intended to predict future results and does not guarantee the accuracy of this information. More information is available at www.lipperweb.com. Thomson Reuters Copyright, All Rights Reserved.
4. Australia Ratings (AFSL 346138) makes every effort to ensure the reliability of the views and rankings expressed in its reports and those published on its websites. Australia Ratings research is based upon information known to it or which was obtained from sources it believed to be reliable and accurate at time of publication. However, like the markets, it is not perfect. This report is prepared for general information only, and as such, the specific needs, investment objectives or financial situation of any particular user have not been taken into consideration. Individuals should therefore discuss, with their financial planner or advisor, the merits of each rating for their own specific circumstances and realise that not all investments will be appropriate for all subscribers. To the extent permitted by law, Australia Ratings and its employees, agents and authorised representatives exclude all liability for any loss or damage (including indirect, special or consequential loss or damage) arising from the use of, or reliance on, any information within the report whether or not caused by any negligent act or omission. If the law prohibits the exclusion of such liability, Australia Ratings hereby limits its liability, to the extent permitted by law, to the resupply of the said information or the cost of the said resupply.
La Trobe Financial is one of Australia's leading independent credit specialist Fund Managers. Its business includes residential mortgages, commercial mortgages, and investment services operating one of Australia's largest Credit Funds under AFSL 222213. It employs over 150 staff and has managed over AUD$10 Billion covering over 100,000 investment grade assets since inception in 1952.

Copyright 2014 La Trobe Financial. All rights reserved. No portion of this may be reproduced, copied, or in any way reused without written permission from La Trobe Financial.

La Trobe Financial Services Pty Limited - Australian Credit Licence Number: 392385
La Trobe Financial Asset Management Limited - Australian Credit Licence Number: 222213

This publication does not constitute financial advice and should not be relied upon as such. It is intended only to provide a summary and general overview on matters of interest and it is not intended to be comprehensive. You should seek your own financial or other professional advice before acting or relying on any of the content.
Terms & Conditions | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy