The Retirement Income Review has achieved many things. It has managed to make a complex system understandable. It used strong principles as its guide. It has achieved its mandate of establishing a fact base while leaving some clear policy direction, all without making any recommendations. Well done to those involved, especially Carolyn Kay, Deborah Ralston and Michael Callaghan.

In combination, complexity and subjectivity form a difficult starting point for effective policy design and it’s my experience that superannuation and retirement are both highly complex and subjective areas.

Pension funds need a generation of investment professionals that are willing to be brave and less conservative than their predecessors if they are to move to the systems level perspectives on investment that is required for better returns and societal outcomes, according to the co-head of the Thinking Ahead Institute, Marisa Hall.

Within a budget of enormous economic consequence were a collection of super reforms which will significantly impact the superannuation system and the retirement outcomes of many Australians. I am sure the proposed measures were well-intentioned. Most will work (perhaps with some unintended consequences) but there is one area that is so flawed that, if implemented as announced, will impair outcomes for consumers.

It’s nearly impossible to have a quality debate about the fate of the superannuation guarantee in media, but as the SG issue is a component of the Retirement Income Review we need a high quality, research-driven approach.

Work is underway - at last - to standardise the way growth and defensive assets are classified. The hope is that...

There are many ways to measure exposure and risk. No single metric is perfect which is why professional risk managers use multiple measures of risk.

The Super System Review shaped the architecture of Australia’s accumulation system

How many superannuation industry leaders truly make every decision through the lens of what they believe is right for their members?

The past financial year has been one of the most volatile on record for stock markets, yet almost every Australian super fund has delivered similar returns.

The best way to integrate different scenarios into portfolio construction is front of mind for investors right now. But as David...

Certainty and risk are at the core of quality advice and at the forefront of client communications, and the value of good financial advice cannot be fully appreciated until these understated concepts are viewed as tangible, creditable benefits to clients.

Ongoing micro-reforms, decumulation solutions, fintech and an end to ideological wars are highlights among the ideas Senator Jane Hume has for improving Australia’s retirement system, many of which can be described as micro-reforms which may disappoint those looking for a single silver bullet big idea.

In most finance courses academics will teach you the maths behind asset pricing and diversification. Often, the first real-world lesson is on the risk of the liquidity mismatch. Over the years that discrepancy between assets and liabilities has proven fatal for companies, industries, governments, banks, managed funds and many hedge funds.

Background: At a recent UNSW virtual research seminar, Calise Liu and Alan Xian presented their research on developing a COVID-19 Susceptibility Index. This interview explores the research and its potential applications. Calise works at Finity Consulting, which specialises in actuarial and strategic analytics consulting. Alan has nearly finished his PhD at UNSW and will start a role at Macquarie University later this year.

As the dust starts to settle on the first round of early access to super, perhaps it is a good time to reflect on the governance and regulation of unlisted assets in super funds. It is a complex area, with consumer protection provided by super fund governance overseen by the prudential regulator.

The current coronavirus crisis has created investment governance challenges for Australia’s superannuation funds – with regard to liquidity requirements – that are relevant to any DC scheme which invests in illiquid assets. It highlights the potential impact of agency issues on decision-making during a crisis environment.

As part of its economic response to the coronavirus crisis, the Federal Government is allowing those facing financial hardship to access their superannuation in two tranches of $10,000. Whether or not to ‘tap’ your super is an important decision. You need to think about the trade-off between your present situation and the one you may face in retirement.

Dispersion of opinion remains alive and well on the topic of how best to approach accumulation vs decumulation investing, but how different are these two regimes in reality?

When we think superannuation liquidity risk, it’s natural to think cashflow liquidity. However, this is just one point of a trident of liquidity issues. Cashflow liquidity, quality of the remaining portfolio, and the equity of the unit price are each important.

Crisis environments are always tough for the investment chiefs of super funds. It’s important to recognise the range of demands they face during a crisis. You shouldn’t expect most CIOs to make “heroic investment calls”.

As an industry we generally tell people what their retirement will look like on average; this is known as deterministic modelling. Typically, we provide little information around the range of retirement outcomes which may be experienced, known as stochastic modelling.

Will those making submissions be able to hold fire and stick to the facts? Facts are difficult to establish in a complex system and they can be difficult to distinguish from beliefs. What may appear to be small differences in assumptions can make a large difference to the assessed outcomes of the retirement system. The ongoing debate between the Grattan Institute and Mercer over retirement adequacy is a case in point. Why would this be?

One interesting observation regarding the current round of merger discussions is that many of the funds publicly mentioned are in good health – generally these funds are experiencing positive net inflow. In contrast, there appears far less activity amongst funds in a less healthy position. Why would this be?

Is the ‘true’ industry fund facing extinction? By ‘true’ industry fund, I mean one that primarily focuses on a single industry even though it may be public offer. Will it be subsumed by the multi-industry public offer profit-for-member fund?

If super is viewed as a blunt tool rather than something which can deliver much more, then Best-in-Show is definitely in play…

Imagine the scenario of a super fund executive enjoying a BBQ with friends, and the taboo subject of remuneration comes up. Would executive remuneration in superannuation pass the community expectations test?