As a football fan, the FIFA World Cup in Russia has so far been an extraordinary one. From a footballing point of view, it has been a fantastic event, with so many close and high-quality games. There have also been quite a lot of upsets, which have been disastrous to my performance in the office tipping competition, in which I have been beaten by colleagues who honestly know very little about the beautiful game.

But of course, not everyone will do well in the office tipping competition. Likewise, not every team will do well in the World Cup. It is just inherently impossible. Various factors, controllable and non-controllable, mean that some will meet or exceed expectations, while others will fall short of expectations.

The World Cup then got me thinking about superannuation. Not all super funds will do well in the monthly or annual performance league tables. Sometimes, a fund beats the median, other times it sits below it. However, there are funds that consistently beat the median, and there are those that consistently sit below it.

And as we know, it is those funds in the latter group that have come under the spotlight from the recent Productivity Commission’s draft report on superannuation. Quoted directly from its media release, it has outlined the extent of the problem:

“Most members are in funds that deliver good investment returns, but millions of members are in funds that persistently underperform — over one in four funds. Over an average member’s working life, being stuck in a poor performing default fund can leave them with almost 40 per cent less to spend in retirement.”

The Productivity Commission has also outlined potential solutions:

“The Commission is proposing that they should get to choose from a ‘best in show’ list of high performing funds that have been identified by an independent and expert panel. And existing members should be able to readily switch to these funds.”

“Trustees of underperforming funds should be merging with better performing funds. And the best people with the right skills must sit on the boards of super funds.”

The report is still a draft and it will likely be a long time until anything happens, particularly given its big brother in the form of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry is probably nowhere near its conclusion.

There may have been isolated and/or uncontrollable factors that contribute to consistent underperformance. But there may also have been underlying factors with processes and/or people within the funds.

The problem is one of several in the superannuation sector, but it is certainly one that most, if not all of us, can agree on. Granted however, the proposed solutions are bound to create controversy.

But like one great man once told me:

“If you identify a problem, please raise it. But you’ll also need to raise a solution. If you don’t have a solution, then it’s just a whinge and that’s not helpful.”

The problem is clear, but I long for the day when the great minds in superannuation land can start to set aside their differences and come together to have serious conversations about potential solutions to this and many other problems in the sector.

After all, whose outcomes matter most at the end of the day, the executives and Board members, or the members?