Since compulsory superannuation was introduced in the early 1990s, the focus of financial planners has been on strategies to maximise contributions and accumulation; and the focus of product manufacturers has been on products to cater to those strategies. But as an increasing number of super fund members move from the accumulation phase of their financial lifecycle into the post-retirement phase, the focus of planners and manufacturers has likewise begin to shift. SIMON HOYLE reports.
Residential housing: the $4 trillion super funds haven’t touched
Residential housing: the $4 trillion super funds haven’t touched
Fee the difference: where fees stop and true super costs begin
Fee the difference: where fees stop and true super costs begin
Why does it feel so strange? Lasting changes in fiduciary investors’ strategies
Why does it feel so strange? Lasting changes in fiduciary investors’ strategies
Why does it feel so strange? Lasting changes in fiduciary investors’ strategies
Why does it feel so strange? Lasting changes in fiduciary investors’ strategies
Consultants’ revival
It has almost become irresponsible for a super fund to set and forget its strategic asset allocation, according to Fiona Trafford-Walker, managing director of Frontier Investment Consulting. Using a rollercoaster analogy, Trafford-Walker says the idea of a fund strapping itself in and hoping for the best does not make sense any more. “If you’re well strapped in and you’ve got a good stomach, that’s fine, but if you’re not well strapped in and you’ve got a weak stomach then it’s not fine, and the thing with a rollercoaster is you can’t get off in the middle,” she says. Frontier has been actively managing clients’ assets for about 10 years, according to Trafford-Walker, but has only recently begun labelling it dynamic asset allocation (DAA) in response to the jargon’s entry into the investment lexicon.
Consultants’ revival
Time for action on governance but who should be the catalyst?
When Barack Obama was awarded this year’s Nobel Peace Prize it tended to overshadow all other prizes, including the one for economics. The Nobel prize for economics went to two US academics, Elinor Ostrom of Indiana University and Oliver Williamson of University of California Berkeley, for years of work into the efficiency of institutions, such as large companies, compared with the marketplace in general. Their work has generally been supportive of the behaviour of companies, as well as other groups acting together, rather than individuals.
