Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
lawyers weekly logo
Advertisement
Superannuation
05 September 2025 by Maja Garaca Djurdjevic

APRA funds, party dissent behind Labor’s alleged Div 296 pause

APRA-regulated funds have reportedly raised concerns with the government over Division 296, as news of potential policy tweaks makes headlines
icon

Fed credibility erosion may propel gold above US$5k/oz, Goldman Sachs says

Goldman Sachs has warned threats to the Fed’s independence could lift gold above forecasts, shattering previous records

icon

Market pundits divided on availability of ‘reliable diversifiers’

While some believe reliable diversifiers are becoming increasingly rare, others disagree – citing several assets that ...

icon

AMP eyes portable alpha expansion as strategy makes quiet comeback

Portable alpha, long considered complex and costly, is experiencing a quiet resurgence as investors navigate ...

icon

Ten Cap remains bullish on equities as RBA eases policy

The investment management firm’s latest monthly update has cited rate cuts, labour strength and China’s recovery as key ...

icon

Super funds can handle tax tweaks, but not political meddling

The CEO of one of Australia’s largest super funds says his outfit has become an expert at rolling with regulatory ...

VIEW ALL

APRA risk capital requirements no Basel III

  •  
By
  •  
2 minute read

APRA says it will not force superannuation funds to hold 0.25 per cent of FUM as a risk capital requirement.

The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) will not dictate how superannuation funds calculate the capital required to offset any potential losses from operational risks.

Although APRA has mentioned that in other industries the level of capital required to be held for operational risk is set at 0.25 per cent of funds under management (FUM), APRA supervisory support division general manager Greg Brunner said the prudential regulator would not enforce that level.

"The 0.25 per cent is out there. It is a number that we will be looking at as a benchmark in sitting down with people and having discussions," Brunner said in a Finsia presentation yesterday.

"[But] there might be a very good reason why people have a different level and we are certainly happy to have discussion about that.

"We're leaving it to them to determine the size of the operational risk financial requirement."

The operational risk financial requirement is part of the proposed prudential standards for superannuation funds, but the relevant standard does not mention the 0.25 per cent.

"It doesn't mention it because it is the start of a conversation," Brunner said.

He indicated funds had three years to develop and implement a proper operational risk financial requirement framework, but said many funds already had a facility in place.

"The statistics aren't very clear on this, but we do know that money has been set aside," he said.

"Some of it is sitting in reserves."

The financial requirements should be part of a wider risk framework, he said, and that framework would differ from fund to fund.

"The amount is to be determined by the RSE (registrable superannuation entity), so there isn't a formula there that APRA is establishing for determining your operational risk financial requirement," he said.

"It is not like the banking sector where there are strict rules set by Basel III.

"We are leaving it to funds themselves to develop the methodology for the operational risk financial requirement."