Purpose The purpose of this paper is to measure efficiency of superannuation funds using data envelopment analysis (DEA), using data related to financial performance of superannuation funds. The sample comprises 183 superannuation funds covering approximately 79 per cent of the 231 largest Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA)-regulated funds in 2012. The research covers a period of seven years from 2005 to 2012. The results indicate that most Australian superannuation funds are inefficient relative to the benchmark efficiency frontier based on efficient funds. The findings emphasise the importance of improving the efficiency of Australian superannuation funds by reducing overall fund expenses to narrow the gap in performance between efficient and inefficient funds. Design/methodology/approach This study aims to contribute to policy, theory and practice in several dimensions. Member protection and the efficiency of the superannuation system are topical issues (Donald, 2009). Despite its importance from a regulatory point of view, efficiency has only been discussed in relation to operational issues such as managing agency relationships, fees and charges, investment return or economies of scale. The relative efficiency of the Australian superannuation system from an economic productivity perspective has rarely been examined, except for a study by Njie (2006), where the Malmquist productivity DEA technique was used to measure the efficiency of Australia’s retirement income system. Findings Most inefficient funds had very low efficiency scores and were fell into the lower quintiles such as Quintiles 4 (scored 0.200-0.399) and 5 (scored 0.001-0.199). Consequently, input reduction targets were significantly higher for these two quintiles. Similarly, input reduction targets were high under the period DEA estimates. In order to be comparatively efficient, Quintile 4 funds were required to reduce total expenses by 75 per cent (−0.754) and volatility of return by 80 per cent (−0.801). Similarly, Quintile 5 funds needed to reduce total expenses by, on average, 83 per cent (−0.824) and volatility of return by 89 per cent (−0.894). Research limitations/implications As in other empirical research, this study also depended heavily on the data collected from the secondary sources such as APRA database and other financial reports. The issues of measurement errors in data sources such as APRA database are well documented (see, e.g. Cummins, 2012). This issue needs the attention of future research on the efficiency of superannuation funds. Practical implications The findings on individual year DEA estimates indicate that most funds were inefficient due to high expenses. Therefore, mandatory disclosure of fees and charges in a comparable manner may be necessary to justify fee payments and to address transparency and accountability issues, which are critical issues identified by the Cooper Review and the academic literature (Australian Government, 2014; Cooper et al., 2010; Gallery and Gallery, 2006). Social implications The issue of Australian superannuation funds concentrating the majority of fund assets in highly volatile investment vehicles such as the share markets has been in the spotlight in the aftermath of the global financial crisis. There have been proposals to better diversify superannuation assets in other asset classes (Cooper et al., 2010). Originality/value This study contributes to the current literature on superannuation funds by investigating efficiency. As efficiency studies using DEA have not been conducted on the Australian superannuation industry, this study also contributes to the academic literature on DEA and its extensive applications to various economic sectors. Efficiency scores using DEA, ranking, trends and shifts in the efficiency frontiers could be obtained for Australian superannuation funds on an on-going or annual basis.
<p>The debate on the applicability of Fair Value Accounting has resurfaced after the Global Financial Crisis. This study contributes to this debate by empirically comparing the effects when the fair value changes of financial instruments disclosed in the notes are considered in the primary financial statements. The study’s sample is four major Australian banks and four of the largest American banks and covers the period from 2005 to 2010. The results show that Comprehensive Income of the sample banks is extremely negatively affected by fair value changes. Shareholders’ Equity is also negatively affected, although the effects are not material. These findings indicate that, from a market value perspective, the underlying performance and risks of commercial banks are not properly reflected in the financial statements. By contrast, as a consequence of high holdings of regulatory capital, fair value changes do not trigger violations of Tier 1 Capital Ratio and Total Capital Ratio. Similar results are found for American banks when capital injections from the Troubled Assets Relief Programme are excluded.</p>
Self-Managed Super Funds (SMSFs) are the largest superannuation sector in Australia with 31.4% of total superannuation assets as at June 2013. Apart from compliances with the ATO and ASIC, SMSFs have no other reporting obligations. Little research has been done on SMSFs as compared to the institutional fund sector. This research examined the gap between expectations and experiences of SMSF holders in Australia to provide more understanding of the current condition of the SMSF sector. The research findings contribute to the superannuation literature and provide information to policy setters. This research uncovered a number of findings. Firstly, demographic factors including age, gender and level of education was influential on expectation to improve fund performance. Secondly, there is no significant gap between expectation and experience in major areas including control, cost, performance and financial service quality in SMSFs. These findings may indicate that the regulators have established an adequate regulatory system for the sector. The findings have implications to the SMSF sector, institutional superannuation funds, superannuation regulations, industry practitioners and relevant stakeholders.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.