To put it into perspective, addressing entrenched underperformance and multiple accounts would mean the difference of more than $60,000 for a 55‑year old by the time they retire.

Loading

For a new entrant, it would mean being ahead $400,000 when they retire in 2064.

It raises the question, how did we get to this situation and where have the regulators been?

It seems this has all gone on in plain sight due to the lack of transparency and substandard data available.

Even now, the Productivity Commission hasn’t got to the bottom of performance.

In its report it says: “Data held by regulators contain many gaps and inconsistencies, especially in relation to funds’ investment expenses and related-party relationships.”

It sent out surveys to the funds to fill in the gaps but only half chose to participate, and of those that did, many skipped questions or provided incomplete data “especially on data that matter most to members”.

The brutal reality is the regulator extracts great detail and data out of the big four banks, which are almost the same size as the superannuation industry from a balance sheet perspective. Why they haven’t been as thorough with our super system?

It’s not like they didn’t know there was a problem. Indeed in December 2014 David Murray’s Financial System Inquiry highlighted a system where fees were higher than in comparable overseas systems, competition wasn’t strong and more suitable products were needed.

Almost four years later, the system that got fat and lazy and overcomplicated, which has adversely impacted the retirement savings of Australians.

There are some well run funds, with strong corporate governance, but there are too many that aren’t and they should have been rationalised years ago.

It is why reform is paramount. But like anything, the devil will be in the detail.

The commission recommends members should be placed into a default fund once and that fund would be derived from a ‘best in show’ list of high‑performing funds identified by an independent and expert panel.

That sounds good in theory but the panel will need to be above reproach.

If it works it will cause a massive overhaul of a sector that has been crying out for better governance and regulation for years.