The response came after a submission to the Financial System Inquiry (FSI) claimed there was a lack of information about asset holdings of SMSFs and this made it difficult to assess the extent of any risk in the system.
SPAA chief executive Andrea Slattery called the allegations “spurious”, characterising them as “so far removed from reality”.
“Look at the annual returns required to be completed by SMSFs and APRA-regulated funds and it’s easy to see which sector provides the greatest level of detail. It’s all there in the ATO files, SMSF by SMSF,” she said.
“ATO reports on SMSFs not only disclose the number of new funds, details about members, their ages and how much they are earning, but also disclose information about the fund’s investments split into 19 investment categories,” she added.
Ms Slattery said that by contrast, APRA-regulated funds report under the cover of “broad aggregates” that reveal nothing specific about their asset allocation.
“Changes to reporting of investment allocations by APRA were highlighted in the last APRA quarterly report showing they aggregate all fund assets, as well as the number of entities with more than four members,” Ms Slattery said.
“The fact is there has been huge resistance by the APRA-regulated funds, even after the current superannuation system has been operating for more than two decades, to disclose their investments.
“This is something they will need to do, to some degree, in the future, but still not to the same extent as SMSFs,” she added.
As reported by SMSF Adviser last week, the Association of Superannuation Funds Australia (ASFA) expressed concern regarding the lack of information about the asset holdings of SMSFs compared with other super funds in its submission to the FSI.
“While data collection across APRA-regulated funds has increased considerably, the ATO is not at this time able to provide the same level of information on SMSFs,” ASFA said.
“Without this data, it is difficult to assess the extent of any of the risks emerging in the system.”
Well said. I did not comment earlier because it is some years since I was in a position to report to APRA, so I was not sure what the current reporting regime is. But SMSF’s have to report a lot of information.
Also, well said George, when the APRA based funds no longer have vested interests, paid trustees (which SMSF’s cannot do), proper, understandable reporting, which few of them do with ALL fees disclosed, trustees benefits properly disclosed and possible some democracy, they can start to question other funds. They should be treated like listed entities with the same reporting requirements, most funds are larger than most listed entities and control a significant amount of dollars – far larger than most listed companies, yet they do not have to abide by the same disclosure rules.
Hey first lets get the industry funds to appoint some independent directors. Then lets get them to fully disclose fees. Next lets get them to disclose all their investments – the risky property deals, the sweetheart deals with the building unions, the overseas assets, and then they will report something near what SMSFs report each year!!!
go Andrea, the people making those submissions are showing their true colours when they resort to telling lies particularly because the data is freely available. I would hope the FSI ignores any submission that is based on a set of false premise