“Sue is a highly regarded member of Australia’s insurance industry and we are delighted she is joining our executive to lead the insurance business as it continues to grow,” said Brad Cooper, chief executive BT Financial Group.

Ms Houghton has deep industry experience garnered through executive roles within IAG and Wesfarmers. Through her impressive business acumen and change management experience Ms Houghton has led large and diverse teams to deliver optimum customer outcomes.

“BT has been very progressive in developing its insurance business – driving better customer experiences and service delivery through progressive partnerships, innovative product development and customer-centred processes.

“It is a very exciting and challenging time in the insurance industry and I am looking forward to continuing the momentum BT has created as well as working in partnership with the investments, advice and superannuation businesses within the group,” said Ms Houghton.

BT Financial Group offers a full range of general insurance products including: home and contents, business, motor, travel, caravan and trailer, marine pleasurecraft and farm insurance through the Westpac Banking Group’s branch network, contact centres and online.

BT’s life insurance business has grown significantly over the last five years with inforce premiums doubling over that period to almost $900m. BT has been recognised with multiple awards for its product, claims and service offering.

Ms Houghton’s appointment comes after David Lees moved to Westpac to take on the role of deputy chief financial officer late last year.

Sue Houghton will join BT Financial Group on 7 March.

The post BT Financial Group appoints general manager insurance appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Brett Clark

Brett Clark, Group CEO and Managing Director of TAL has been elected to the board of the Financial Services Council.

“Brett brings a deep understanding of financial services to the FSC Board which spans 20 years and covers life insurance, wealth management and consulting,” said FSC chairman, Greg Cooper.

He also co-chairs the FSC’s Life Board Committee.

Prior to his current role at TAL, Mr Clark was responsible for running TAL Life Australia and TAL Retail Life and previously held senior positions with American International Assurance (AIA) Australia.

He is also a director of TAL Dai-ichi Life Australia Pty Limited, TAL Life Limited and TAL Superannuation Limited.

Brett holds a Bachelor of Commerce from the University of Melbourne; is a Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries Australia; and is a graduate of the INSEAD Advanced Management Program.

The FSC Board now comprises:

• Chairman: Greg Cooper – CEO, Schroder Investment Management Australia Limited
• Co Deputy Chairman: Brad Cooper – CEO, BT Financial Group;
• Co Deputy Chairman: Geoff Lloyd –CEO and MD, Perpetual Limited;

Directors:

• Brian Benari – MD and CEO of Challenger Limited;
• Pauline Blight-Johnston − Group Executive of Insurance and Superannuation, AMP;
• David Bryant − CEO & CIO of Australian Unity Investments;
• Robin Burns – MD, Equity Trustees Limited;
• Brett Clark ̶ Group CEO and Managing Director of TAL;
• Lochiel Crafter − Head of Asia Pacific, State Street Global Advisors;
• Andrew Hagger – Group Executive, NAB Wealth and CEO MLC Limited;
• Brett Jollie – MD, Aberdeen Asset Management Australia Limited;
• Damien Mu −CEO of AIA Australia Limited;
• Annabel Spring – Group Executive, Wealth Management, Commonwealth Bank of Australia;

The post Brett Clark elected to FSC Board appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Brad Cooper

BT Financial Group CEO Brad Cooper said that the proposed reforms to advice and superannuation contained in the Government’s response to the Financial System Inquiry have the potential to boost retirement incomes and deliver a better quality of life to the bulk of the community.

“We welcome the Government’s announcement that it will enshrine the objectives of superannuation into legislation. This will help achieve policy consistency and certainty for providers looking to deliver the suite of complex financial products and services required to ensure more Australians have a comfortable retirement journey.

“Most importantly, this will provide Australians with a greater level of confidence in the superannuation system and ensure that any futures changes to the system will need to be consistent with this objective.”

Mr Cooper says BTFG is also broadly supportive of the recommendation that trustees be able to pre-select for members a comprehensive income product for retirement.

“Retirees have differing needs in retirement, therefore the recommended income product should be principles-based and supported by an integrated advice model which provides targeted, simple advice to members to ensure that the pre-selected product is properly calibrated.”
BTFG also strongly supports initiatives that help lift the professional standards of financial advisers.

“Building the community’s confidence in the financial planning industry is incredibly important if we are going to ensure that more Australians seek expert advice on how to plan for their retirement.”

“This is why we wholeheartedly support the introduction of a consistent registration exam for all providers of personal advice, a supervised professional development year of no less than 12 months for new advisers and the introduction of a code of ethics for all advisers.

We also support the lifting of minimum education standards for financial planners and we have been on this journey for some time. Australians deserve to have confidence in the person they seek advice from,” Mr Cooper concluded.

The post BT Financial Group welcomes the government’s response to the Financial System Inquiry appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Brad Cooper

In 1909, Australia was a sparsely populated, largely rural nation. Its 4.2 million people were young, and the average person was not expected to live beyond 55 years[1] .

It was at this time the federal government first introduced the Age Pension. Its access age was set at 65 – ten years beyond the average life expectancy for an Australian male[2] . One year later, in 1910, the government opened it up to women with an access age of 60[3] .

The proportion of people expected to reach 65 was relatively low, and those who did could expect to live for around 11 years with their income funded by the government[4] . Without this in place, their circumstances would have been dire. Often in poor health, with no means to earn a wage, and a dwindling network of family and friends, these older Australians would essentially be left destitute.

There’s no doubt that in 1909 we, as a nation, recognised our social responsibility to look after Australians who reached such advanced years. Thus the Age Pension served as a safety net, protecting these vulnerable people in our society from falling on tough times.

For more than 80 years, the Age Pension was the central pillar of our retirement income system. But against this constant, Australia continued to change.

Let’s fast-forward to 1992, average life expectancy had shot up to 74 – a 19- year increase5 , but with the same Age Pension access age in place. With the demographic bulge of the baby boomers looming, it was clear that a taxpayer funded universal pension scheme would fast become unaffordable.

The combination of an ageing population, increasing longevity, and fiscal decline meant we had to decouple retirement from a welfare model and find a way to make workers contribute to their own retirement funds. While many white-collar workers were already doing this and accumulating private savings, for many blue-collar workers it was simply out of reach.

So with more people retiring, living longer, and less government capacity to provide them with an income, the superannuation system was born.

The idea was to have a universal system comprising of Three Pillars:

• A government-funded safety net in the form of the Age Pension
• Compulsory contributions made from employers into employee’s superannuation accounts – the Superannuation Guarantee
• And the ability for people to make additional, Voluntary Contributions into their super fund with tax incentives to encourage this. No matter which way you look at it, there is no doubt that this three-pillar system has been a success. Already it’s delivering many benefits.

Each year,

• It saves the government more than $7 billion on Age Pension expenditure[6]
• It will shortly generate more than $11 billion in annual tax revenue for the federal budget[7]
• And in 2012/13 more than 155,000 retirees drew an income stream from their super, improving their quality of life and allowing them to live with greater dignity and comfort in retirement[8] .

Our economy has also been a strong beneficiary of super. The more money retirees have in private savings, the more they can spend in our local businesses, travel to our country’s attractions, and use the services of the next generation of doctors, nurses, lawyers, tradespeople and many other professions.

Disappointingly, the championing of these benefits is often pushed aside, in favour of more headline-grabbing arguments such as the apparent injustice of the tax concessions provided to, quote, “the rich”.

Let me get this straight, I do believe that there are some things we can do to improve the system’s equity. But what I am concerned about is that these tactical issues are a distraction from the much more important discussion we need to have.

While we’ve had our eyes narrowed to these micro debates, we are missing the big picture. And in turn, if we’re not careful, we will miss an opportunity to design the best superannuation system we can for our children, and our nation’s future.

This is what we should be discussing; the superannuation framework for the future.

One that has bipartisan political support with consistency.

One that will help superannuation providers innovate and deliver to their members with stability.

One that will allow individuals to plan for their retirement with certainty.

A framework so clear that we can easily measure its success.

So how do we achieve this? The first step is to look at who we are making policy for.

If you consider our welfare system, it contains a myriad of different policies that are designed to help people with the challenges they face based on their personal circumstances.

So why is it we don’t look at super in the same way? While super has universal application, the challenges members face are not uniform.

We need to recognise that we essentially have two ‘phases’ of superannuation members who we need to cater for.

The first are those in the system as it currently stands, which I would guess would be everyone in this room today.

This is the system that is still maturing. It is only 22 years old. It started with a contribution rate of 3 per cent, only reached 9 per cent in 2002 and will not get to 12 per cent until 2025 [9] . Importantly, most people working today have not and will not spend the majority of their working lives in it at a full 12 per cent.

This means we will face different challenges in saving for our retirement, in particular when it comes to reaching an adequate balance.

The other phase is what I call the ‘mature’ system. Those who enter the workforce in 2025 – today’s 9 and 10 year olds – will spend their entire working lives with an SG of 12 per cent – who knows, maybe it will even be higher. They will also certainly live longer on average than anyone who is in the ‘maturing’ system today. They should enter into a mature, well-structured system. This throws down a whole new gauntlet of policy challenges in itself.

I believe that it’s time governments, policymakers, academics and researchers, as well as the superannuation industry and the broader community, started looking at superannuation through these two separate lenses.

A maturing system and a mature system.

The policy challenges for the people in each system are different.

Each requires a different policy framework to achieve its success.

I want to first talk briefly about the maturing system. This is the one we spend most of our time talking about, and as I said before, its tax concessions are a key focus.

I will say that I think it’s entirely appropriate, and necessary, to place a limit on the tax concessions people receive.

The guiding principle should be that tax concessions remain in place as long as they are being used to build savings that generate an income in retirement that affords a decent quality of life.

I will say that again because I think it’s important we realise this. Super is meant to be used to generate replacement income in retirement.

Beyond this, I do not think it’s appropriate for people to use its tax-free status to build incredibly high levels of wealth or serve as a proxy estate planning tool.

So how do you ensure that the system is being used for its intended purpose? In my view, there should be a cap on the amount that people are able to roll over from accumulation to pension. Recognising that super is intended to generate an income in retirement, the question has to be asked… to what level? I believe the fairest and simplest benchmark for this debate should be the gauge of average weekly ordinary time earnings.

For many households a single person’s superannuation will be funding the retirement of a couple. Therefore in retirement, if a person has a balance high enough to draw an income stream that is twice AWOTE, then I believe this is the point that taxpayer funded tax concessions should fall away. If people want to generate more income capacity, then of course they should be free to do this, but it should be outside the superannuation system and without the taxpayer-funded concessions.

At present, average earnings are $75,000 per year[10]. This would mean that the cap on what self-funded retirees can pay themselves would be $150,000. Even on the most conservative calculations, the maximum balance you would need to draw this income stream annually throughout your retirement is $2.5 million.

However I want to pause on talking about the $2.5 million cap in pension phase for one reason. Currently, in the maturing system, the number of Australians who have superannuation balances in excess of $2.5 million is One Half of One Per Cent.[11] .

So while such a change is important, it is only a small piece of a much larger puzzle. A bigger issue is how we improve retirement outcomes for low income Australians.

In this regard, I believe in the maturing system we must maintain the Low Income Superannuation Contribution. It’s unfair that our poorest super savers are taxed on their compulsory superannuation contributions and it makes even less sense that they are taxed on their voluntary contributions. If you make less than $37,000 a year, why would you sacrifice income that you pay no tax on and put it in your super where it will be taxed at 15 per cent on the way in?

Now I recognise that the Abbott government has committed to not make any adverse, unexpected changes to superannuation. But in the maturing system, if we tighten things up at the top, it gives us scope to address some anomalies at the bottom. This would generate fairer outcomes for the community, and better retirements for more Australians.

Regardless, we should use this period of promised policy stability to talk about the design of our mature system.

Much like the conversation about a self-funded retirement started many years before the Superannuation Guarantee was born, now is the time to discuss its future framework; when we have time on our side, the wisdom of lessons learnt and knowledge of new demographic trends.

The system that will have come of age in 10 years from now; in which most people will work for more than 40 years; who will contribute at a rate of 12 per cent or higher the entire way through; and who will retire for more than 25 years.

We need to discuss this framework, so that everyone can clearly understand the purpose of superannuation and, most importantly, measure the system’s success against it. Right now is the time to be having this discussion; in a period of policy stability and with a maturing super system about to graduate to mature.

In my view there are two key components to this framework.

First, we need to build in real targets for retirement savings.

This all starts with the question of adequacy.

There are various benchmarks that people can currently use, which give a picture of what they would need, on average, to fund a comfortable lifestyle in retirement. These are dollar measures, and are normally based on a predetermined ‘basket of goods’, whose prices are adjusted in line with CPI.

They focus on a relatively subsistent living, but we need more than that. With around 23 per cent of our population projected to be over 65 by 2054-55[12] , we need a system that helps retirees save more, so they can be active participants in our economy.

This is why I believe a better measure of superannuation adequacy is the income replacement ratio. That is, the percentage of your final few years’ working income that you want to replace in retirement. It has the benefit of being both personally relevant to each retirement saver, yet can also be enshrined in public policy.

In this respect, I believe aiming for a replacement ratio of 65 per cent is the most meaningful. This was put forward by a Senate Inquiry in 2002, and I believe it is an achievable target for the bulk of the community[13] .

Government, industry and savers would all be helped by enshrining an agreed income replacement ratio – after all, that’s what superannuation is supposed to do. Replace your income.

For many people, particularly those on average earnings or below, replacing this income will include a part Age Pension.

I do not think this represents a failure of the system. The Age Pension is the first pillar, and was always intended to be the safety net.

We need to acknowledge that even with higher compulsory contribution rates, some people will just not have the financial capacity to make additional contributions to their super, without seriously compromising their living standards while working. However the basic principle should be that those who can afford to put away extra, should. And we should continue to provide them with the incentives to do so.

In my opinion this is a compelling argument for carrying the maturing system’s tax concessions framework into the mature system. It’s fair to say that if a person becomes fully self-funded, and the government is not going to be spending up to $23,000 each year on a person’s Age Pension, that they should receive a tax break in exchange.

What’s more, by capping the total amount people can roll over into pension phase, you can ensure that these tax breaks are being used for this purpose, and not for others.

So this is the first part of the framework. Enshrining a target superannuation balance capable of producing 65 per cent income replacement to a maximum of 2 times average weekly earnings.

This will not be enough in itself. Adequacy is critical but it’s not the only component.

Longevity is just as important.

People not only need to know how much of their income they need to replace, they also need to know for how long they will need to replace it for. Knowing how long they will live is clearly the key input here.

One of the biggest structural issues with our retirement income system is that it has not had the inbuilt flexibility to allow it to adapt as our population characteristics have changed.

Take the Age Pension for example. Access to it was set originally at age 65. 108 years will have passed by the time it rises to 65.5 in 2017[14] and 114 years til it reaches 67. It also remains dependent on the government of the day to make changes. Given this can be a politically unpalatable decision, it’s not an easy one for any government to make.

What if, instead, we set access age to superannuation and the age pension against an actuarial benchmark of on life expectancy?

In my view, this would deliver better outcomes. As the average life expectancy of our population rose, access to superannuation and age pension would also rise. This would allow our system to adapt itself to Australia’s changing demographics, and not be reliant on the politics of the day to make changes.

For example, if you look at the system today, average life expectancy at retirement is 86. Access to superannuation is set at 60, or 71 per cent of average life expectancy, and pension access at 67, or 79 per cent of average life expectancy[15]. As average life expectancies increase, we could calibrate these access ages in line with the increase. This is just one idea, but it highlights how important it is to have inherent flexibility in the system.

So that is the second part of the proposed framework – linking access to superannuation and Age Pension to average life expectancy to make it easier for the system to evolve with society.

Now that we are clear on what the purpose of super should be; how do we make it a reality? The next step is clear: stop super being hijacked by the politics of the day. We all know that superannuation is a long-term game, but for many years it has been subject to short-term change. Each year when the Treasurer brings down the federal budget, the annual ‘kick the superannuation football’ game begins.

Often this means super gets tinkered with in the Budget each year as well.

But what if we took it out of this short-termism and into a longer-term game? In this regard, I believe a much better place for superannuation to be assessed, and for policy recommendations to be made is within the Intergenerational Report, or the IGR.

Unlike the annual Budget, it is published every five years and has a much longer time horizon of 40 years compared to four. It also contains the important demographic, actuarial and financial information that would help policymakers set superannuation policy against long-term adequacy and longevity benchmarks.

In particular, there are three components of superannuation policy that should be enshrined within it:

1. First and foremost, the IGR should be the place where the long-term costs and benefits of superannuation are published, rather than in the annual budget Tax Expenditure Statement. Focusing on an annual “cost” of tax concessions creates a distracting debate and perpetuates a flawed conversation about tax concessions. It’s much more suited to the long-term horizon of the IGR.
2. Next, we should allow the IGR to make recommendations on the appropriate access age for the Age Pension and for superannuation. As discussed, these should be set using a measure of average life expectancy, and would be recalibrated every five years as new census information becomes available.
3. Finally, the IGR should recommend a cap for the maximum balance allowable in pension phase, taking into account the 65 per cent income replacement benchmark, plus perhaps any dramatic changes to the cost of living that are forecast to occur.

The IGR could also play a role in better informing superannuation policy settings more broadly. One way it could do this is through more detailed projections of system outcomes. That is, not only look at what the ageing population costs, but how self-funded retirees interact with those costs and the benefits of their contributions to the economy.

For example, will retirees be able to afford private health insurance? What might be asked of self-funded retirees in paying for healthcare? How might they be able to contribute to their own aged care costs?

No one has all the answers, but I have no doubt that with informed input from the IGR we can have a better conversation.

If we put in place a stable, depoliticised framework for our mature system, then I have no doubt we will be able to better cater for fund members throughout their superannuation journey.

The next step is painting a clearer picture of what this journey looks like for the majority of Australians.

At present, we often think about a person’s journey as having two phases – accumulation and retirement. It’s possible that this narrow thinking is one of the reasons we are largely behind the curve when it comes to innovative retirement products.

I’d like to put forward a new way to conceptualise this, which, I think, will galvanise superannuation product providers – such as BT – behind true product innovation.

We can clearly see 3 phases we all need to consider.

1. The accumulation phase, which for most people will be the bulk of their lives. In this phase the goal is to accrue, though compulsory and voluntary contributions, and compounding returns, a superannuation balance that can generate an income replacement rate of 65 per cent, to a maximum balance in retirement of $2.5M
2. The next phase is ‘active retirement’. This period starts when a person is able to access their superannuation and finishes when they reach mean mortality, or average life expectancy. During this phase, retirees want to convert their accumulated superannuation balance to an income equal to 65 per cent of their pre-retirement income, whilst making sure they still have enough capital available for the next phase.
3. Finally, we have the frail years of retirement, or from average life expectancy to death. Because of continual improvements to life expectancy, slightly more than half the retired population will actually make it to this phase. And those who do can expect to live 13 years past it. During this time, many will need aged care. In each of these phases a person’s needs and wants vary greatly. As an industry, we need to understand this, and design products and services to meet these diverse needs.

Underpinning this must be an understanding that the enduring need is certainty.

In accumulation, members are working and contributing to their super. They want to be certain that their superannuation contributions are going to be managed well, make good returns, and at a reasonable cost. I believe as an industry we have come in leaps and bounds in addressing this.

During the active retirement years replacing income to a reasonable level becomes the most important. However people also want enough flexibility to be able draw a lump sum to pay off debt, meet medical expenses or undertake home repairs. We need to design products that are flexible and cost effective so that retirees can achieve this.

I would also argue that it’s during these years that people want the most certainty around making sure they don’t outlive their retirement savings. This is when, at the very latest, retirees should invest in products like annuities.

In the frail years, retirees desire certainty of income, and need longevity protection so that this income will last the rest of their lives. However, given around half the population will not reach this phase, I think it is inefficient for everyone to save for it individually.

Instead, it would be far better to develop pooled products such as insurance and deferred lifetime annuities, which can be purchased for a reasonable premium either during the accumulation phase or during the active retirement phase, and that kick in when you reach average life expectancy. In addition, many people who reach this phase will encounter health issues that will require them to draw down on capital assets for income and for access to aged care. This is where more sophisticated reverse mortgages could be appropriate, or other product solutions that allow you to deplete assets over time.

Regardless of what the solutions might be, conceptualising retirement in these distinct phases, agreeing the framework for a mature super system, coupled with a stable superannuation system that has bipartisan political support, will instil confidence in all.

Australians will no longer fear change to their super and product providers will have greater freedom to innovate and develop the cost effective suite of financial products required to help retirees manage their savings throughout their years.

However, even with all that done, there remain a few groups where I think superannuation policy needs to be refined to cater for their circumstance.

Our Indigenous Australians are the first that come to mind. The average life expectancy for the Indigenous community is much lower than the rest of Australia. In fact the equivalent mean mortality rate for indigenous people is around 75 compared to 86 for non-indigenous[16] – an 11 year gap.

I therefore do not believe it is fair to set their superannuation access age the same. We need to make sure we are giving all Australians the time to enjoy their retirement savings in proportion to how long they’ve worked, and how long they are expected to live.

For example, if you set access age at 70 per cent of Indigenous average life expectancy, they would be able access their super at 53, giving them, on average, 22 years in retirement.

The second group is women. While we know they have a longer life expectancy than men, I don’t advocate making women work for longer than men or giving them access to their super later.

However, we know that women, on average, have far less super than men. This is true across all groups, but is most visible at retirement17. A major contributor to this is the income differential between men and women – on average women are paid around 17 per cent less[18] .

So what about having a lower contributions tax rate for women? While I know this raises all sorts of issues, including the not so insignificant fact that it goes against our Constitution, could it be delivered through rebates or offsets that are placed directly into a woman’s superannuation account?

Finally, we need to look at how we can enable people who have broken working patterns or have not been able to contribute from a young age to ‘catch up’ on their superannuation contributions. The answer to this ultimately lies in making the annual SG caps as flexible as possible. Capping the total amount you can roll over into retirement at $2.5 million gives us great scope to relax these caps without the tax concessions being abused – another logical argument to do this.

Yes these solutions might be complex, but the fact is until we have fixed the 17 per cent wage gap; until we address the health issues impacting indigenous mortality; and until we have a super system designed to accommodate different working patterns, we need to start thinking about creative ways to address the superannuation gap.

It’s simple – we either fix the superannuation gap, or fix the underlying issues that create the inequity.

So today I advocate for a framework that defines the goals of superannuation – a framework within which governments can legislate, policymakers can advise, superannuation providers can operate and people can plan their retirements.

And I hope I have put some meaning to the current industry buzz words …

Adequacy. The system must provide adequate income replacement – that’s why I put income replacement at the heart of the framework. If it doesn’t do this, it fails.

Sustainability. Superannuation will only be sustainable if it has the flexibility to adapt to changing demographics and caters for the longer lives we are all living.

Equality. It will only achieve equality if everyone who works – Indigenous, women, broken-pattern workers, the low-paid – can all see how super works for them.

Simplicity. This can only be achieved by limiting the opportunities to meddle with rules, limits and tax rates – this simply disengages people with the complexity it brings.

Let’s celebrate superannuation’s successful childhood by defining how it will now mature into an adult system that delivers comfort and dignity in retirement to the bulk of the population. We’ve proven we can make superannuation work – now let’s make it work for all Australians, for many years to come.

Thank you.

Brad Cooper CEO, BT Financial Group Friday, 31 July 2015 Trans-Tasman Business Circle

——–

[1] Australian Life Tables 2005-2007 http://www.aga.gov.au/publications/life_tables_2005- 07/downloads/Australian_Life_Tables_2005-07.pdf

[2] History of the Age Pension http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/3d68c56307742d8fca257090002029cd/8e72c4526a94aaedca2569de0 0296978!OpenDocument

[3] Ibid

[4] Above n1

[5] Ibid

[6] ASFA, Mythbusting Superannuation Tax Concessions, http://www.superannuation.asn.au/ArticleDocuments/116/1503- Mythbusting_superannuation_tax_concessions.pdf.aspx

[7] Budget 2016/16 http://budget.gov.au/2015-16/wp-content/bp1/download/Budget_Paper_No_1.pdf

[8] ASFA, The Future of Australia’s Superannuation System: A new framework for a better system http://www.superannuation.asn.au/ArticleDocuments/1089/ASFA_FutureAustraliaSuperSystem_Nov2014.pdf.aspx

[9] ATO, 20 years of the Superannuation Guarantee, http://www.ato.gov.au/Mediacentre/Commissioners-online-updates/20-years-of-super-guarantee/

[10] ABS, Average weekly earnings, http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6302.0

[11] ASFA Super and high account balances report http://www.superannuation.asn.au/ArticleDocuments/1089/ASFA_Super-and-high-accountbalances_Apr2015.pdf.aspx

[12] Treasury, 2015 Intergenerational Report, http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2015/2015%20Intergenera tional%20Report/Downloads/PDF/04_Chapter_1.ashx

[13] Senate Select Committee Inquiry into Superannuation and Standards of Living in Retirement, September 2002

[14] Above n2

[15] Above n1 above n2

[16] ABS, Average life expectancies, http://www.aihw.gov.au/deaths/life-expectancy

[17] ASFA, An update on the level and distribution of retirement savings, http://www.superannuation.asn.au/ArticleDocuments/1089/1403-LevelAndDistributionRetirementSavings.pdf.aspx 18 Australian Government Workplace Gender Equality Agency, http://www.wgea.gov.au/media-releases/nationalgender-pay-gap-rises-182

The post How can super reach its full potential? appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Brad Cooper

Westpac Group has been acknowledged for its leadership in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (LGBTI) employee inclusion at the 2015 Australian Workplace Equality Index (AWEI) Awards on Friday 15 May:

• Westpac moved up to second place in the Employer of the Year rankings
• Brad Cooper won the Executive Leadership Award
• Kristina Bennett won the LGBTI Ally award
• GLOBAL was awarded LGBTI Employee Network of the Year

“Our goal is to create a workplace where people are truly comfortable to be themselves – where they are appreciated for the job they do and not judged on their sexual orientation or gender identity.  And importantly, where they feel safe and respected,” Mr Cooper said.

Since 2011 ‘Pride in Diversity’ the social inclusion arm of the Aids Council of NSW (ACON) has been ranking the top twenty LGBTI-friendly employers in Australia at the AWEI Awards. The awards were established to encourage employers and LGBTI network leaders to develop solutions, provide training, set challenges and improve the overall inclusivity of their workplace policies, practices and culture.

Westpac Group has developed a range of initiatives including: bullying/harassment procedures, inclusive language training and policy reviews to update definitions including ‘family’ and ‘partner’. One of the most distinct and successful internal campaigns ‘You Being You’ encourages all employees to bring their whole self to work. There has been an increase each year in LGBTI employee engagement since ‘You Being You’ was launched.

“This recognition goes to the core of our vision to be one of the world’s great companies for diversity and flexibility, helping our customers, communities and people to prosper and grow,” Mr Cooper said.

The post Westpac recognised as a leader in workplace inclusion appeared first on AdviserVoice.

BT staff to support LGBTI youth on the ‘Wear it Purple’ Day.

BT continues to show its support for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) youth by asking all employees to Wear it Purple and producing a powerful and personal video of employees sharing their stories with the LGBTI community through ‘It Gets Better’.

It Gets Better

As announced in May BT is proud to be a principal partner of It Gets Better Australia – a non-profit organisation helping LGBTI youth cope with harassment and discrimination relating to their sexuality.

BT Financial Group (BTFG) Chief Executive Officer, Brad Cooper, said the sponsorship and ongoing programs within BTFG are about supporting LGBTI youth with the challenges they face due to community attitudes and the pressure and isolation felt when “coming out.”

It Gets Better Australia aims to show young LGBTI people the levels of happiness, potential and positivity their lives can reach. The organisation uses videos to capture the voices of adult LGTBI people who have experienced bullying and discrimination and who have come out the other side to live happy, fulfilling and successful lives.

BT Financial Group, Westpac and St. George employees (all part of the Westpac Group) have made their own video sharing powerful and deeply personal stories in the hope they will inspire LGBTI youth to feel supported and send the message that things really do get better.

Wear it Purple

August 29 is Wear It Purple Day, a day to show support for LGBTI youth by dressing in purple. It’s a day to empower LGBTI youth and raise awareness across schools, universities, workplaces and the general community about the challenges these youths face.

Statistics show (LGBTI) people have an increased risk of being bullied, discriminated against and assaulted, and suffer from mental health concerns as a consequence.

According to a report by the National LGBTI Health Alliance, 80% of LGBTI people in Australia experience public insults, 20% explicit threats and 13% physical assault, with the most ‘at risk’ places being home and school.

“This lack of acceptance and bullying has a knock-on effect for social and health outcomes, making it more likely for these youths to suffer mental health problems, drop out of school, use drugs, run away from home and even commit suicide,” Mr Cooper said.

Taking part in Wear It Purple Day is about building a world that allows every young person to thrive – no matter what their sexuality or gender identity. BT is working with It Gets Better and supporting Wear It Purple with the aim that LGBTI young people will be safe, supported and empowered.

The post BT shows ‘It Gets Better’ for LGBTI youth appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Brad Cooper

BT Financial Group Chief Executive Brad Cooper has called for a radical overhaul of consumer access to information on Australia’s financial planners.

“We think all Australians should have access to as much information as possible to help them make informed choices about the quality of financial planners across the country,” Mr Cooper said.

“We believe there are a range of factors that determine whether a financial adviser is right for them. Education is critical but assessed in isolation does not provide a full picture of the quality and suitability of an adviser.

“For some time we have advocated that access to meaningful information on financial planners will help improve the transparency that Australians deserve. We have long supported the creation of a public register that would encompass the education, years of experience, employment history and areas of expertise and annual certification results for every financial planner in Australia.

“Most importantly we would like to see a customer rating for all advisers that would be widely accessible by all Australians.

“A common industry standard covering advice audits is also required to support the register.

“It was especially pleasing to see the Government’s initiative to establish a working group to examine the creation of such a register.”

Mr Cooper said he was pleased to see other industry participants supporting elements of this agenda.

“To be effective, our aim is to have a collective effort from across the industry for this initiative.”

The post BT Financial Group calls for tougher central register of financial planners appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Brad Cooper

BT and the School for Social Entrepreneurs have  launched a new program to support Australia’s emerging social entrepreneurs.

The SSE & BT Social Entrepreneur Incubator is an annual learning program for up to 25 students who have an idea for a start-up venture with a lasting community benefit.

BT, one of Australia’s most respected and innovative financial institutions, will provide financial support to the Incubator as well as business expertise and mentoring from employees to students on the program.

School for Social Entrepreneurs Australia chief executive, Celia Hodson, said: “The Incubator program will prepare our students for the best start to their entrepreneurial journey by tapping into the business expertise of BT as well as giving them the confidence and networks to make a real difference in their communities.”

BT Financial Group chief executive, Brad Cooper, said: “We are very excited to provide support directly to entrepreneurs – to prepare them to launch social initiatives that deliver positive social change. It aligns perfectly with our vision to help people prepare for their best financial future. “Our funding will provide the opportunity for 25 students to participate in this program.”

Previous School for Social Entrepreneurs students have included Jamie Moore, the creator of Hello Sunday Morning, which tackles binge drinking culture in young people, and Michael Combs, founder of Career Trackers which works with private sector companies and Indigenous university students to create career pathways through internship programs across Australia.

Applications open on 7 April 2014 for interested students and mentors. Application information can be found at: www.sse.org.au

The post BT and School for Social Entrepreneurs launch Social Entrepreneur Incubator appeared first on AdviserVoice.

The changes have largely been driven by:

• a desire to accelerate its strategy of earning more of The Westpac Group’s seven million customers’ superannuation, investment, advice and insurance business; and
• the need to help customers, advisers, dealer groups and the IFA market navigate the changes brought about by the Future of Financial Advice and Stronger Super reforms. 

BT Financial Group Chief Executive Brad Cooper said that given the pace of change in the wealth sector, flawless execution would be required from teams who are adept at not only responding to legislative change but also building innovative new offerings for customers.

“We are setting ourselves up to help our customers, advisers, dealer groups and the IFA market navigate the changes of unprecedented government reform and to help position them for the future.”

Notable changes to BT Financial Group’s structure include:

• a new division – Bank Distribution and Insurance – which, in addition to managing the life and general insurance businesses will be responsible for the drive to earn more of The Westpac Group’s customers’ superannuation, investment, advice and insurance business. Mark Smith has been appointed General Manager, Bank Distribution and Insurance
• a new division – Business Transformation lead by General Manager John Shuttleworth – will focus on designing and building the next generation wealth platform to support the evolving needs of key customers including advisers, dealer groups and investors
• the Superannuation and Investment business, focused on Australia’s $1.2tr superannuation opportunity[1], will now bring together the Group’s multi-award-winning BT Super for Life, Corporate Super and BT Wrap and Asgard platforms, with its investment businesses including Advance Asset Management, Ascalon and BT Investment Management[2].  General Manager David Lees will head up this unit
• a bolstered Private Wealth division lead by Jane Watts will deliver to the banking and wealth management needs of high net worth customers of Westpac Private Bank, St. George Private Clients and Bank of Melbourne Private.

There are no structural changes to the Advice business which comprises Westpac Financial Planning, St.George Financial Planning, BankSA Financial Planning, Bank of Melbourne Financial Planning and Securitor.  This unit lead by General Manager Mark Spiers is set to employ an additional 140 planners over the next three years in order to address growing demand for professional financial advice.

The post BT Financial Group announces new structure to accelerate strategy appeared first on AdviserVoice.