Super fund charged dead members: ASIC
In proceedings launched on Friday in the Federal Court, ASIC claims Mercer Super, a $70bn fund with almost one million members, had 'serious issues in its business'.
The corporate watchdog alleges that between October 2021 and September 2024, Mercer Super had inadequate systems in place.
ASIC claims Mercer did not report up to seven internal investigations and reported others more than a year late. Mercer allegedly charged dead Australians for insurance premiums. NewsWire / Nicholas Eagar Credit: NewsWire
The reviews investigated how funds had not being refunded correctly after a member had died, how members' accounts were not being created with default insurance and how updates to members' information were not being processed by the trustee.
ASIC deputy chair Sarah Court alleged Mercer had a pattern of longstanding and systemic failure to comply with the law.
'These aren't just technical breaches,' she said.
'Allowing investigations into significant issues to drag on for months or, in some cases, over a year without reporting them to ASIC demonstrates a lack of care for customers and can put more at risk.
'As one of Australia's largest super funds, Mercer Super should have had adequate systems in place to manage and monitor critical issues like this.'
Mercer is not alone, with ASIC saying it has sued Australian Super and Cbus over alleged failure in handling death benefits and insurance claims.
NewsWire has reached out to Mercer Super for comment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
11 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
This couple spent $500 trying to buy their dream home. They never stood a chance
Clutching a bright yellow bidding panel, amid a crowd of onlookers stretched across a concrete driveway, Rebecca Borkman was quietly hopeful she was about to secure her dream home. Advertised at just $700,000, the two-bedroom townhouse in the Sydney suburb of Bankstown was within the budget of Borkman and her partner, Byron Tolley, with $150,000 to spare. The couple were so serious about the home that they had shelled out more than $500 to obtain pest, building and strata reports in preparation, and discussed bidding tactics. But it soon became clear they never stood a chance. What Borkman, 33, didn't know when she arrived at the auction was that the reserve price for the property was $850,000, more than 20 per cent above the advertised guide. The sale had lured 18 registered bidders, and the townhouse sold for $896,000. 'As soon as that auction started, we were wondering why we even bothered showing up or getting excited,' Borkman said. 'If they let us know that the reserve was anywhere even around $800,000, we wouldn't have put so much time and money into it. But they [the agent] were firm on the $700,000 guide.' Scenes like this are repeated at weekend auctions across the country. In response to an online survey, almost 5600 people told this masthead's Bidding Blind investigation that they had spent money and time investigating properties that they would later discover they could not afford. A separate data analysis of more than 36,000 auction listings reveals that more often than not Sydneysiders and Melburnians are being misled by advertised price guides. That means Australians are forking out thousands of dollars on multiple pest and building inspections, contract reviews and strata reports during extended property hunts, only for the homes they had fallen in love with to sell hundreds of thousands of dollars above the guide. Several Victorian buyers said they had recently paid for a building inspection on homes advertised within their budget. Then, even though auction bidding surpassed the top end of the sale guide – sometimes by hundreds of thousands of dollars – the home was passed in because it didn't meet the vendor's reserve. 'Agents often argue that it's the buyers and auctions that drive up the price, but conversations with the agent often indicate early on that the buyer wants a much higher rate than advertised,' said one of these prospective buyers. Another buyer looking in Sydney's inner west, a hotspot for underquoting complaints, said it felt like they were being constantly scammed. 'We are often lied to about vendor expectations and then spend money on building reports, contract reviews by lawyers ... We recently had an experience where the auction guide was $1.7 million and the reserve was closer to $2.2 million.' Following the Bidding Blind investigation, the Victorian and NSW governments are facing pressure from industry groups, consumers and opposition parties to stem the tide of wasted cash by overhauling underquoting laws. Victoria's peak real estate lobby group announced it would support the mandatory pre-auction disclosure of reserve prices by sellers, a significant policy shift for a group long resistant to such a proposal. Key real estate industry leaders in NSW have also backed that model, with both state governments promising to seek advice or continue consultation on potential solutions. Another idea to stem the cost of inaccurate price guides is to require vendors to provide prospective purchasers with free building and pest inspections before auction, as is the case in the ACT. 'There will still be buyers who will want to get their own independent report, but this removes the cost and the double up for a large portion of buyers, and it would directly remove the financial harm of underquoting,' said Consumer Policy Research Centre chief executive Erin Turner. In NSW, agents are required to provide prospective purchasers with a contract of sale and disclose issues such as whether the property has been subject to recent flooding, has any external combustible cladding or has been the scene of a murder or manslaughter in the past five years. In Victoria, sellers are legally required to provide a 'section 32 vendor's statement', which details information about any easements, zonings, strata scheme management and fees and whether a property is in a bushfire-prone area. However, buyers in both states are encouraged to seek their own building inspections, which usually cost between $300 and $1000 depending on the size of the property and whether a pest inspection is included. Contract reviews, also recommended, will generally cost $200 or $300. And in NSW, buyers have to pay a fee to access strata reports. 'It's not unusual to get 30 or 40 people through a home … let's just say half of them [arranged inspections and other due diligence] – there's 15 grand down the toilet,' said buyers agent Paul Mulligan. Loading 'There are a lot of gutted buyers out there, and what ends up happening is even worse than the cost [because] they go out and then they buy a place out of frustration, and potentially overpay or buy a lemon. It's huge. It's a huge consumer cost, emotionally and financially.' Victorian buyers advocate David Morrell, who described underquoting as 'cheating', said the practice came with an 'opportunity cost' for prospective buyers who missed out on properties when they didn't obtain access to enough pre-approved finance due to misleading price guides. 'If the agent hadn't lied to you at the start, you'd be living in your favourite home,' Morrell said. As a former property manager at a real estate agency, Rebecca Borkman felt like she should have been in a better position than most to navigate the auction process when she was searching for a home in Sydney last year. But the human resources professional said her experience was so painful that she eventually refused to consider buying any property that was being auctioned. Borkman and her partner instead bought a home in Carlingford, in Sydney's north-west, through a private sale. 'If something came up for auction, we would immediately write it off the list, no matter how much it suited our needs, because it was so damaging to our bank account, to our self-esteem and to our emotional wellbeing,' she said. 'If even I, with that experience [of being a property manager] in my past, feel almost scammed, then what's someone who has no idea what they're getting themselves into meant to do?' Borkman said the reason they had fallen in love with the Bankstown townhouse, with its front and back garden and 297-square-metre block, was because it had been undervalued by the $700,000 auction guide. 'The minute that we showed up there and looked at the property, I thought, 'This is so far beyond anything else that we had seen within that price range' … as it turns out, we were looking at a property that was worth $900,000.'
The Age
11 minutes ago
- The Age
The problem with taking advice from ‘finfluencers'
For better or worse, now when people go looking for life advice or want to find answers to burning questions, the place we increasingly turn to is social media. And sure, there are a lot of areas in our lives where this can be great. Suggestions on how to use up half a can of chickpeas or learning how to braid your hair is one thing. But when it comes to things like our health and finances, the risks associated with getting advice from unqualified influencers are exponentially higher. That's one of the reasons that I was happy to see that the Australian Securities and Investments Commissions recently took part in a global crackdown on financial influencers, also known as 'finfluencers', along with regulators from the United Kingdom, Italy, Hong Kong, Canada and the United Arab Emirates. Following the crackdown, ASIC commissioner Alan Kirkland explained: 'It's important that consumers separate fun from fact when it comes to influencer content. Popularity doesn't equal credibility.' In other words, a finfluencer might have 100,000 people eager to listen to what they have to say, but that doesn't mean they have the qualifications, expertise or a legal right to be saying it in the first place. In the UK alone, the regulator issued 650 requests for content to be removed from social media, 50 takedown requests to websites being operated by influencers, and seven cease and desist letters. The regulators also invited four influencers in for interviews, and made three arrests. In Australia, though, the fallout was much smaller, with ASIC issuing just 18 warning notices to financial influencers suspected of providing unlicensed financial advice and/or unlawfully spruiking high-risk financial products. Loading As tempting as it might be to think that our markedly smaller numbers are a sign of Australian finfluencers being better, more honest people than those in other nations, that's not quite it. The main reason for our A+ performance is a thing called INFO 269, which are guidelines ASIC issued in 2022 specifically outlining the rules and regulations for social media influencers offering financial advice. In addition to breaking down the legal standards influencers are required to meet before discussing or promoting stocks, financial products or investment funds, the guidelines also make the consequences of breaking any rules crystal clear: up to five years in jail, or fines of over $1 million. These threats aren't idle, either. In 2021, ASIC successfully filed a lawsuit against Tyson Scholz, an Australian finfluencer who dubbed himself the 'ASX Wolf'. At the time, Scholz was offering stock tips via paid online subscriber groups to his Instagram followers, which sat at well over 100,000 people. At the time, though, Scholz did not hold a valid financial services licence, meaning his advice specifically on what stocks to buy was against the law. By 2023, he was facing bankruptcy over a $450,000 court-imposed debt from the regulator. And it's not just finance influencers who are being closely watched and regulated, either. In 2022, the Therapeutic Goods Administration announced restrictions on how influencers post about products such as vitamins, protein powders, supplements, sunscreen, medical devices and medicines. These changes mean influencers must clearly disclose if they are in partnership with a brand, and they also cannot share their personal experience with therapeutic products.
The Age
11 minutes ago
- The Age
This couple spent $500 trying to buy their dream home. They never stood a chance
Clutching a bright yellow bidding panel, amid a crowd of onlookers stretched across a concrete driveway, Rebecca Borkman was quietly hopeful she was about to secure her dream home. Advertised at just $700,000, the two-bedroom townhouse in the Sydney suburb of Bankstown was within the budget of Borkman and her partner, Byron Tolley, with $150,000 to spare. The couple were so serious about the home that they had shelled out more than $500 to obtain pest, building and strata reports in preparation, and discussed bidding tactics. But it soon became clear they never stood a chance. What Borkman, 33, didn't know when she arrived at the auction was that the reserve price for the property was $850,000, more than 20 per cent above the advertised guide. The sale had lured 18 registered bidders, and the townhouse sold for $896,000. 'As soon as that auction started, we were wondering why we even bothered showing up or getting excited,' Borkman said. 'If they let us know that the reserve was anywhere even around $800,000, we wouldn't have put so much time and money into it. But they [the agent] were firm on the $700,000 guide.' Scenes like this are repeated at weekend auctions across the country. In response to an online survey, almost 5600 people told this masthead's Bidding Blind investigation that they had spent money and time investigating properties that they would later discover they could not afford. A separate data analysis of more than 36,000 auction listings reveals that more often than not Sydneysiders and Melburnians are being misled by advertised price guides. That means Australians are forking out thousands of dollars on multiple pest and building inspections, contract reviews and strata reports during extended property hunts, only for the homes they had fallen in love with to sell hundreds of thousands of dollars above the guide. Several Victorian buyers said they had recently paid for a building inspection on homes advertised within their budget. Then, even though auction bidding surpassed the top end of the sale guide – sometimes by hundreds of thousands of dollars – the home was passed in because it didn't meet the vendor's reserve. 'Agents often argue that it's the buyers and auctions that drive up the price, but conversations with the agent often indicate early on that the buyer wants a much higher rate than advertised,' said one of these prospective buyers. Another buyer looking in Sydney's inner west, a hotspot for underquoting complaints, said it felt like they were being constantly scammed. 'We are often lied to about vendor expectations and then spend money on building reports, contract reviews by lawyers ... We recently had an experience where the auction guide was $1.7 million and the reserve was closer to $2.2 million.' Following the Bidding Blind investigation, the Victorian and NSW governments are facing pressure from industry groups, consumers and opposition parties to stem the tide of wasted cash by overhauling underquoting laws. Victoria's peak real estate lobby group announced it would support the mandatory pre-auction disclosure of reserve prices by sellers, a significant policy shift for a group long resistant to such a proposal. Key real estate industry leaders in NSW have also backed that model, with both state governments promising to seek advice or continue consultation on potential solutions. Another idea to stem the cost of inaccurate price guides is to require vendors to provide prospective purchasers with free building and pest inspections before auction, as is the case in the ACT. 'There will still be buyers who will want to get their own independent report, but this removes the cost and the double up for a large portion of buyers, and it would directly remove the financial harm of underquoting,' said Consumer Policy Research Centre chief executive Erin Turner. In NSW, agents are required to provide prospective purchasers with a contract of sale and disclose issues such as whether the property has been subject to recent flooding, has any external combustible cladding or has been the scene of a murder or manslaughter in the past five years. In Victoria, sellers are legally required to provide a 'section 32 vendor's statement', which details information about any easements, zonings, strata scheme management and fees and whether a property is in a bushfire-prone area. However, buyers in both states are encouraged to seek their own building inspections, which usually cost between $300 and $1000 depending on the size of the property and whether a pest inspection is included. Contract reviews, also recommended, will generally cost $200 or $300. And in NSW, buyers have to pay a fee to access strata reports. 'It's not unusual to get 30 or 40 people through a home … let's just say half of them [arranged inspections and other due diligence] – there's 15 grand down the toilet,' said buyers agent Paul Mulligan. Loading 'There are a lot of gutted buyers out there, and what ends up happening is even worse than the cost [because] they go out and then they buy a place out of frustration, and potentially overpay or buy a lemon. It's huge. It's a huge consumer cost, emotionally and financially.' Victorian buyers advocate David Morrell, who described underquoting as 'cheating', said the practice came with an 'opportunity cost' for prospective buyers who missed out on properties when they didn't obtain access to enough pre-approved finance due to misleading price guides. 'If the agent hadn't lied to you at the start, you'd be living in your favourite home,' Morrell said. As a former property manager at a real estate agency, Rebecca Borkman felt like she should have been in a better position than most to navigate the auction process when she was searching for a home in Sydney last year. But the human resources professional said her experience was so painful that she eventually refused to consider buying any property that was being auctioned. Borkman and her partner instead bought a home in Carlingford, in Sydney's north-west, through a private sale. 'If something came up for auction, we would immediately write it off the list, no matter how much it suited our needs, because it was so damaging to our bank account, to our self-esteem and to our emotional wellbeing,' she said. 'If even I, with that experience [of being a property manager] in my past, feel almost scammed, then what's someone who has no idea what they're getting themselves into meant to do?' Borkman said the reason they had fallen in love with the Bankstown townhouse, with its front and back garden and 297-square-metre block, was because it had been undervalued by the $700,000 auction guide. 'The minute that we showed up there and looked at the property, I thought, 'This is so far beyond anything else that we had seen within that price range' … as it turns out, we were looking at a property that was worth $900,000.'
