Australia’s superannuation industry could have either of two proverbs applied to it. The first is that if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. The other is that will be no good closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.
Yesterday the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, Joe Hockey, published an issues paper on the industry calling for public comment on what, if anything, should be done about changing the regulatory regime that applies to it. By and large the industry has been running reasonably well. But it would be dangerous to be complacent for several reasons. There have been some failures in the industry, including ones of major trustees, which have resulted in significant losses to funds and members. There have been some spectacular crashes in related prudential industries, notably insurance, which indicate that all is not well with the regulatory environment. No regulatory regime can prevent all failures, crashes and losses, but they can help prevent some. Nor should a regulatory regime aim to prevent all market losses. However, the spectacular nature of the HIH case indicates that perhaps the move to deregulation, self-regulation and market forces has gone far enough.
The argument in favour of some greater regulation of the superannuation industry also arises out the nature of superannuation itself. It is quite different from usual commodity markets. Superannuation has a high social element; the law requires people to put money in a fund; there is little choice about the fund for many people; the fund is tied up for a long time; there are taxation concessions so the Government has a stake; many funds put invitations out to the public; and there is great disparity of knowledge between those doing the investing and those whose funds are invested.
Continue reading “2001_10_october_leader03oct super”