The final FSI report is an “uneven and underwhelming effort” that is likely to be superseded by the upcoming government tax white paper, said Tria managing partner Andrew Baker.
The SMSF segment is “barely mentioned” other than restoring the ban on direct leverage in superannuation, he added.
“If you are serious about industry cost structure, how do [you] ignore a third of the system – particularly when it epitomises fragmentation and loss of scale benefits?” he asked.
Instead, the report is for the most part about default superannuation, Mr Baker said.
The FSI has recommended that MySuper be replaced with a tender/auction process for default funds by 2020 unless costs come down.
“The industry funds and their stakeholders will be particularly unhappy with the final report,” Mr Baker said.
The “prescription” for improved efficiency in the report is to remove super from modern awards and enterprise bargaining agreements, and to water down the role of stakeholders (namely, unions), Mr Baker explained.
Retail superannuation funds will be less than delighted with the report as well, he said.
“The FSI unexpectedly endorsed the Productivity Commission’s conclusion that MySuper was not a sufficient standard for default super, and that a quality filter is necessary,” Mr Baker said.
However, there “must be doubt” about how many of the default super recommendations will be implemented, given bipartisan support seems unlikely, he said.
“The FSI report puts the super industry on notice to attack its cost structure and evolve its governance model,” Mr Baker said.
“Those are good things which will benefit members, and in train already at better funds.
“But as with the Super System Review, claims of huge improvements in member outcomes as a result of the FSI’s recommendations should be taken with a large dose of salt,” Mr Baker said.
