Clicky

Bank super directors ‘hopelessly conflicted’

Some trustee directors of bank and institutionally-owned superannuation funds are conflicted by tied investment and insurance arrangements and should resign, according to one of the longest-serving members of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal (SCT), Noel Davis.

He has also suggested that such conflicts also bring into question the advice fees deducted from member accounts, particularly if the superannuation fund members had never met with the adviser in question.

Davis, who resigned his position with the SCT this month, has reinforced some of the issues raised during the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry by suggesting that when the directors of a superannuation fund are also the employees of the bank or institution running the fund “they have a hopeless conflict of interest”.

Related News:

Discussing matters that came before the SCT, Davis said that for superannuation funds conducted by the financial institutions, the making of submissions [to the SCT] was “often confused in that submissions by the trustee are frequently made by a company in the group of companies and not by the trustee itself”.

“That is a consequence of these very confusing corporate arrangements where membership of the superannuation fund and of life and disability insurance to go with it is sold by the financial institution either directly to a person or through an employer’s superannuation arrangement.”

Davis said it was apparent from submissions to the SCT that it was frequently the case that even employees of the financial institution were confused about what the role is of each company in these convoluted arrangements.

“The members are of course even more confused by them,” he said.

“Some of the directors of the trustee in these arrangements are invariably also employees of the financial institution. They, of course, have a hopeless conflict of interest because of their duties to the employer and their duties as directors of the trustee in ensuring that the related investments and insurance arrangements are the best that can be done for the members.”

Davis said the so-called independent directors of these trustees were sometimes former employees of the financial institution or were advisers or former advisers to the trustee and were not, therefore, independent.




Related Content

Thinktank cautions SMSFs on retail property purchases

Small to medium-size enterprises (SMEs) in the retail sector should always think carefully about acquiring property for the dual purpose of using it f...Read more

Back to her roots to solve today’s issues

Samantha Clarke, chief executive officer of tech start-up, Advice RegTech, has taken out this year’s Innovator of the Year Award at the 2018 Money M...Read more

Licensees, not planners face RC-imposed changes

Licensees rather than financial planners are likely to face the greatest changes resulting from the interim findings and recommendations of the Royal ...Read more

Author

Comments

Comments

As opposed to ISA fund trustees, who according to the latest APRA report were paid grossly far higher fees and wages compared to all others, made decisions to benefit themselves and employees above members which has been factually proven, have paid out commissions and unsupported inflated fees to related parties such as their parent unions and Labor political events, made decisions on assets such building using only their own union run organisations at grossly inflated prices resulting in an asset that cost almost 3x what it would normally but then deceitfully recording it on the assets at that value not at the market valuation, have orchestrated extra commissions to themselves not the member funds profits with insurers by negotiating lesser member protection for higher kick backs for themselves, and are rife with cronyism, with such exulted experienced trustee academics such as little Billy Shortmen's wife running the whole show... But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of yet another sensationalist headline by some obscure ex-nobody who most likely is in the pay or owes a favour to these ISA thugs (or that is what the RC in 2015 labelled the unions anyway).

Can you provide references to your claims?

Add new comment