当前位置: X-MOL 学术Law and Financial Markets Review › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
The governance and regulation of the superannuation industry: systemic failure in the Australian retail sector
Law and Financial Markets Review Pub Date : 2018-10-02 , DOI: 10.1080/17521440.2018.1550187
Thomas Clarke 1
Affiliation  

The superannuation industry has grown vastly in many parts of the world in recent decades. In Australia the superannuation has become more firmly established than anywhere else, since in 1992 the Keating Labour Government introduced a compulsory employer contribution scheme. This was intended to alleviate the income in retirement dilemma of the majority of Australians. This system has consolidated massively in recent years with accumulated assets of $2,709 billion in June 2018 (APRA 2018), with this figure projected to compound further over the next decade before growth slows with benefit payments, with calls for a further raising of employer superannuation contributions to ensure the adequacy of retirement benefits. A benign view would be that Australia has demonstrated some forethought in preparing for an ageing populations needs, and a recent report proposed this view (Grattan Institute 2018). However, a more critical assessment of the operation of the retail sector of superannuation in Australia suggests the industry has been typified by systemic governance failures and regulatory omissions, with a damaging impact upon beneficiaries interests. This has significant implications for how the superannuation industry is governed and regulated in other jurisdictions. The superannuation industry has grown considerably and become central to the financial architecture of the Australian economy and the lives of all Australians. A series of significant reports including the Super System Review (2010), Financial System Inquiry (2014), ASIC (2018), and Productivity Commission (2018c) have highlighted systemic and structural problems in the industry that remain in urgent need of attention. The deliberations of Round 5 of the Financial Services Royal Commission have fully demonstrated the scale and immediacy of the ongoing systemic misconduct in the Australian financial services sector regarding superannuation, and the weak governance and regulatory structures that have allowed this to happen. Serious omissions and exemptions in superannuation regulation are impacting badly on the interests of superannuation fund members. The governance failures, omissions and exemptions undermine the purpose and performance of superannuation and suggests the requirement for a more robust legislative and regulatory framework. This new framework needs to clarify roles and responsibilities to ensure the system is meeting its objectives efficiently, and that all stakeholders are making transparent decisions in the best interests of members. The Terms of Reference of the Financial Services Royal Commission propose that “all Australians have the right to be treated honestly and fairly in their dealings with banking, superannuation and financial services providers” and that “these standards should continue to be complimented by strong regulatory and supervisory frameworks.” The research papers prepared by AIST (Goodwin 2017; AIST 2018b) on gaps and exemptions in the regulation of superannuation, together with the evidence considered by the Royal Commission in its Round 5 on superannuation in September 2018, suggest that the regulatory and supervisory frameworks for superannuation are in need of significant repair to rebuild effective governance, ensure the integrity of trustees duties, end systemic conflicts of interest, and eliminate gaps and exemptions which have led to poor outcomes for superannuation fund members. There is a consistent pattern running through all of the legislative and regulatory gaps, governance failures and conflicts of interest in the superannuation system in the way they have allowed members to be manipulated between different schemes by Choice providers pursuing higher fees for the providers, not members interests’ in higher returns. In the existing legislative and regulatory framework of superannuation in Australia the purpose of superannuation is not articulatedwith sufficient clarity and conviction, and the performance of superannuation funds is not measured with sufficient rigour and comparability. This is fully demonstrated in the AIST Gaps and Exemptions in the Regulation of Superannuation – Their Scope, Rationale and Impact (2017). This paper reviews the evidence on the implications of the gaps and exemptions documented in AIST (2018b) for the governance and performance outcomes of the Australian superannuation industry and focuses upon the causes of poor member outcomes. The remedy of a new regulatory architecture for the superannuation sector and refocusing of institutions and products upon the longterm interests of beneficiaries is compelling.

中文翻译:

养老金行业的治理和监管:澳大利亚零售业的系统性失败

近几十年来,退休金行业在世界许多地方都取得了巨大的发展。自 1992 年基廷工党政府引入强制性雇主供款计划以来,澳大利亚的退休金制度比其他任何地方都更加牢固。这是为了减轻大多数澳大利亚人在退休困境中的收入。该系统近年来得到了大规模整合,2018 年 6 月 (APRA 2018) 的累计资产为 27,090 亿美元,预计这一数字将在未来十年进一步复合,然后随着福利支付增长放缓,并呼吁进一步提高雇主养老金缴款以确保退休福利的充足性。一个良性的观点是,澳大利亚在为人口老龄化需求做准备方面表现出了一些先见之明,最近的一份报告提出了这一观点(Grattan Institute 2018)。然而,对澳大利亚养老金零售业运营的更严格评估表明,该行业的典型特征是系统性治理失败和监管疏忽,对受益人的利益产生了破坏性影响。这对其他司法管辖区如何管理和监管养老金行业具有重大影响。退休金行业发展迅速,成为澳大利亚经济金融结构和所有澳大利亚人生活的核心。Super System Review (2010)、Financial System Inquiry (2014)、ASIC (2018)、和生产力委员会(2018c)强调了该行业仍然迫切需要关注的系统性和结构性问题。金融服务皇家委员会第 5 轮的审议充分证明了澳大利亚金融服务部门在养老金方面持续存在的系统性不当行为的规模和紧迫性,以及导致这种情况发生的薄弱治理和监管结构。养老监管的严重疏漏和豁免严重影响了养老基金成员的利益。治理失败、遗漏和豁免破坏了养老金的目的和绩效,并表明需要一个更健全的立法和监管框架。这个新框架需要澄清角色和职责,以确保系统有效地实现其目标,并且所有利益相关者都在为成员的最佳利益做出透明的决定。金融服务皇家委员会的职权范围建议“所有澳大利亚人在与银行、养老金和金融服务提供商打交道时都有权得到诚实和公平的对待”,并且“这些标准应继续得到强有力的监管和监管框架。” AIST (Goodwin 2017; AIST 2018b) 准备的关于养老金监管的差距和豁免的研究论文,以及皇家委员会在 2018 年 9 月的第 5 轮养老金中考虑的证据,表明需要对养老金监管框架进行重大修复,以重建有效治理,确保受托人职责的完整性,结束系统性利益冲突,并消除导致养老金基金成员结果不佳的差距和豁免。养老金系统中的所有立法和监管差距、治理失败和利益冲突都有一个一致的模式,它们允许选择提供者在不同计划之间操纵成员,为提供者而不是成员收取更高的费用利益”以获得更高的回报。在澳大利亚现有的退休金立法和监管框架中,退休金的目的没有足够清晰和明确地阐明,并且养老金基金的表现没有足够的严谨性和可比性来衡量。这在 AIST 养老金监管中的差距和豁免——其范围、理由和影响(2017 年)中得到了充分证明。本文回顾了 AIST (2018b) 中记录的差距和豁免对澳大利亚养老金行业的治理和绩效结果的影响的证据,并重点关注成员结果不佳的原因。养老金部门新监管架构的补救措施以及将机构和产品重新聚焦于受益人的长期利益是令人信服的。基本原理和影响(2017 年)。本文回顾了 AIST (2018b) 中记录的差距和豁免对澳大利亚养老金行业的治理和绩效结果的影响的证据,并重点关注成员结果不佳的原因。养老金部门新监管架构的补救措施以及将机构和产品重新聚焦于受益人的长期利益是令人信服的。基本原理和影响(2017 年)。本文回顾了 AIST (2018b) 中记录的差距和豁免对澳大利亚养老金行业的治理和绩效结果的影响的证据,并重点关注成员结果不佳的原因。养老金部门新监管架构的补救措施以及将机构和产品重新聚焦于受益人的长期利益是令人信服的。
更新日期:2018-10-02
down
wechat
bug