Much has been said about the idea of choice in relation to products.
Some believe there is no such thing as enough choice and that we shouldn't tell people, or in this case super fund members, what to do.
As the argument goes, in a free market, the economic mechanics will sort out the good products from the bad ones, because people simply will stop using inferior products.
Others believe that there is such a thing as too many options and that the sheer range of choices will overwhelm people, leading to a widespread apathy.
But during a panel discussion at the Actuaries Institute earlier this week, Professor Jack Gray, who is an investment roundtable director at the Paul Woolley Centre for Capital Market Dysfunctionality, made another interesting observation.
If 80 per cent of super fund members show no interest in selecting investment options, why do funds pour some much time and effort in creating investment options?
This question is especially relevant for the not-for-profit sector, as they should be able to prove that any money spent is to the general benefit of their members.
The argument for a wide range of investment options centres on the ability to compete with other super funds, and in the case of not-for-profit funds with retail funds.
This is important too, but when we look at member behaviour in recent years a different trend emerges.
In making a sweeping generalisation, it seems that members are either disinterested in their investment options or excessively interested and leave a fund to start a self-managed super fund (SMSF). As an aside, there are other reasons to start an SMSF but let's take the kind view for argument's sake.
Perhaps then all that is needed to service members to the best of one's ability is to concentrate all effort into making the default option the best investment strategy that institutional experience can provide (not necessarily the cheapest), and create a direct investment menu for those people that think they are Warren Buffett.
Funds can save costs by getting rid of almost all of their non-default investment options, simplify compliance reporting and probably reduce the number of investment managers and service providers.
Funds would still be able to compete on the basis of their default option, potentially offering a more specialised fund to members; whether it is a high risk, low risk, capital protected or a pension option.
All sorted, right?
