Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
lawyers weekly logo
Advertisement
Regulation
05 May 2025 by Maja Garaca Djurdjevic

Labor’s clear mandate boosts investor confidence, but fiscal headwinds loom

Despite the global trend of incumbents falling victim to cost-of-living frustrations, Labor has bucked the tide, returning to government with an ...
icon

Finalists unveiled for Fund Manager of the Year Awards 2025

InvestorDaily’s sister brand, Money Management, has announced over 100 finalists for its annual Fund Manager of the Year ...

icon

Are humanoid robots set to dominate the next big investment wave?

Market pundits believe the age of humanoid robots is arriving, with several prominent analysts highlighting the sector ...

icon

Surging ETF flows carry gold’s price rally in Q1

Gold ETF flows helped carry a slowdown in central bank buying in the March quarter, with demand for the yellow metal ...

icon

Aussies undeterred by new global order, eye opportunities in the dip

While US equity returns this year-to-date remain firmly in the red, investor flows locally tell a story of sustained ...

icon

Bond market turmoil, not stocks, drove Trump’s tariff pause, says fund exec

President Donald Trump’s abrupt decision to pause the implementation of sweeping new tariffs in April was driven more by ...

VIEW ALL

APRA risk capital requirements no Basel III

  •  
By
  •  
2 minute read

APRA says it will not force superannuation funds to hold 0.25 per cent of FUM as a risk capital requirement.

The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) will not dictate how superannuation funds calculate the capital required to offset any potential losses from operational risks.

Although APRA has mentioned that in other industries the level of capital required to be held for operational risk is set at 0.25 per cent of funds under management (FUM), APRA supervisory support division general manager Greg Brunner said the prudential regulator would not enforce that level.

"The 0.25 per cent is out there. It is a number that we will be looking at as a benchmark in sitting down with people and having discussions," Brunner said in a Finsia presentation yesterday.

"[But] there might be a very good reason why people have a different level and we are certainly happy to have discussion about that.

"We're leaving it to them to determine the size of the operational risk financial requirement."

The operational risk financial requirement is part of the proposed prudential standards for superannuation funds, but the relevant standard does not mention the 0.25 per cent.

"It doesn't mention it because it is the start of a conversation," Brunner said.

He indicated funds had three years to develop and implement a proper operational risk financial requirement framework, but said many funds already had a facility in place.

"The statistics aren't very clear on this, but we do know that money has been set aside," he said.

"Some of it is sitting in reserves."

The financial requirements should be part of a wider risk framework, he said, and that framework would differ from fund to fund.

"The amount is to be determined by the RSE (registrable superannuation entity), so there isn't a formula there that APRA is establishing for determining your operational risk financial requirement," he said.

"It is not like the banking sector where there are strict rules set by Basel III.

"We are leaving it to funds themselves to develop the methodology for the operational risk financial requirement."