"IOOF's approach to compensating superannuants for a number of administrative errors going back in time is up for consideration. Apparently these issues and the way they were remedied falls under the "Best Interests" clauses of the SIS (Superannuation Industry Supervision) act, a section I suspect a lawyer could drive a truck through without hitting anything. So this section of the act is quite "grey" and has never been tested before apparently and it's here that the IOOF lawyers are hanging their hat. I think IOOF believes they were "Best Interesting" everybody."
Yes, makes sense.
There is also the matter of materiality that warrants consideration, I think, and which has been lost in the fog of war.
From the information disseminated into the public domain, the dollar amounts involved are modest as are the number of clients involved.
Besides, while this kind of error and oversight is obviously undesirable and best endeavours need to always be vigorously applied to achieve a state of zero error all of the time, I'll wager that this kind of thing happens frequently in all large corporations.
I can't help feeling that IOOF, because of the behaviour and attitude of its CEO during proceedings of a high-profile public forum, has been made a bit of an industry scapegoat and a compromised regulator has sought to make an example of IOOF.
.
IFL Price at posting:
$5.57 Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)
