AUSTRALIA - the government has outlined the final terms of how an A$55m levy will be raised on regulated superannuation funds to recompense superannuation fund members who lose money due to the collapse of an investment manager.
In this year's budget, the government proposed the one-time levy to pay the victims defrauded in the collapse of Trio Capital in 2009. Investors lost an estimated A$100m in the collapse, but the government proposed only reimbursing those members who lost money through an Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) regulated mainstream superannuation fund, while "DIY" investors remain uncompensated.
The two peak bodies representing Australia's superannuation funds - the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) and the Australian Institution of Superannuation Trustees (AIST) - expressed concern that the levy calculation results in an unequal distribution of the cost of the levy as it was capped at A$500,000.
Assistant Treasurer Bill Shorten announced that that, in response, the government will increase the maximum levy amount from A$500,000 to A$750,000, meaning that smaller funds will pay a smaller proportion of the levy.
"This will result in funds with less than $5.57bn in assets paying a smaller proportion of the levy, as the applicable rate will fall from 0.01977% to 0.01347%," Shorten said in a statement. "Funds with more than $5.57 billion in assets will pay the maximum levy of $750,000 while funds with assets below $371,195 will pay the minimum levy of $50."
Shorten also announced that superannuation funds would have a 60-day payment term following the issue of the invoice to funds by APRA. Initially, funds were to only have had 28 days to make payment.
This week's top stories included Legal & General acquiring MyFutureNow to provide a dashboard service to customers, while also agreeing a hybrid buy-in with a Hitachi scheme.
NEST has signed up to the government-backed Star Initiative, taking all of its 8 million members' pension pots with it.
It is perhaps inherently difficult to find an agreed definition of value for money, but some methodologies could act as a stopgap, argues Jonathan Stapleton.