ato logo
Search Suggestion:

2018 RDF high level industry results

Last updated 16 July 2019

Each fund was rated using a common set of 12 likelihood indicators and seven consequence indicators, with the consolidated results summarised in the graph below.

For 2018, 93% of funds were in the lower risk category, along with 6% for key client funds and 1% for medium risk funds.

The high level results show us that 99% of funds were rated as having a good standard of reporting, which is the same as last year. These are all the funds categorised as Lower risk or Key client.

This year, 50% of funds have either maintained or improved their results. And for the fourth year in a row, there are no funds classified as higher risk.

Figure 1 – Placement of RDF population

Figure 1 The risk differentiation framework. The graph shows the 4 risk categories and the likeliness of compliance. The Y axis shows the consequence of non-compliance. The X axis shows the likelihood of non-compliance. The 4 risk categories form a square along these axis’. The bottom left square is the lower risk category which reads 93%. The top left square, further up the consequence of non-compliance side, reads the ‘key client’ category at 6%. The bottom right square, along the likelihood of non-compliance, reads Medium risk 1%. The top right square reads Higher risk 0%.

Table 1: Comparison of classification over five years

Classification

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

Higher Risk (top right)

0

0

0

0

2

Key Client (top left)

14

16

17

18

14

Medium Risk (bottom right)

1

3

2

2

8

Lower Risk (bottom left)

195

212

227

236

225

Not Rated

10

6

5

5

16

TOTAL

220

237

251

261

265

Table 2: Comparison of consequence indicators over five years

Consequence indicators

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

1. Membership

25,837,194

26,865,118

27,013,599

28,613,114

21,511,696

2. Contributions

$95,102,039,505

$105,579,608,320

$91,229,279,953

$93,741,445,523

$82,557,036,147

3. Account Balances

$1,658,474,172,342

$1,676,950,054,771

$1,399,424,807,762

$1,300,143,929,591

$1,194,438,187,438

4. Active MCS lodged

14,308,424

14,088,659

13,650,578

13,765,445

13,750,039

5. Inactive MCS lodged

16,988,675

18,076,847

18,901,544

18,706,511

19,345,967

6. Number of Lost accounts

868,547

665,397

580,455

1,223,338

1,308,237

7. Total value of Lost accounts

$17,366,888,956

$13,393,311,875

$11,315,422,964

$13,318,008,700

$13,161,657,731

Data for each year is for the period 1 July to 30 June for that financial year, taken as at 31 December following the end of that financial year.

The seven indicators above are used to determine a funds consequence rating.

The fund’s membership was obtained from the 2018 income tax return.

The values for contributions, account balances, active MCS and inactive MCS were obtained from the 2018 member contributions statement.

  • We obtained the number and the value of lost member accounts from the MAAS and the 2018 member contributions statement.
  • The number of lost accounts was obtained from the lost status reported via the MAAS as at 31 December 2018. This figure includes both lost uncontactable and inactive accounts.
Table 3: percentage of funds that met the benchmark

Indicator

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

1. Personal contribution without TFN

95.85

94.00

93.09

90.87

91.30

2. Correct TFN quoted

83.57

81.00

74.10

69.73

62.30

3. Duplicate TFNs

90.61

90.50

86.94

85.43

89.68

4. Non Individual TFNs

97.65

95.70

94.29

94.09

68.65

5. Timeliness of MCS lodgment

94.09

89.00

95.22

95.79

93.21

6. Completeness of MCS lodgment

81.29

77.30

66.83

57.53

38.83

7. Open and lost member accounts

44.09

40.00

42.23

41.76

26.96

8. Lost members > 65 years old

67.09

57.47

65.71

63.77

75.86

9. Lost accounts < $6,000 

43.67

48.20

80.00

51.21

43.84

10. Timeliness of USM

83.10

86.70

80.00

87.04

78.52

11. Timeliness of co-contribution remittance PVAs

71.24

74.00

77.96

68.56

69.70

12. Timeliness of LISC remittance PVAs

63.58

76.40

74.04

70.27

63.72

Overall the top eight indicators improved and the final four indicators declined from 2017.

Table 4: indicators explained

Indicator

Explanation

Importance

Benchmark

1. Personal contribution without a TFN

Percentage of MCSs with personal contribution reported by a fund

This indicator will help funds identify potential breaches of the contributions standard. It also encourages a best practice approach in accepting and identifying compliant contributions.

≤0.05%

2. Correct TFN quoted

Number of quoted TFNs matched with the ATO-derived TFNs

 N/A

≥97%

3. Duplicate TFNs

Number of instances where the same TFN is reported for different individuals

Correct TFN data ensures payments are streamed to the correct accounts and gives confidence to funds in the accuracy of the data provided during contributions and rollovers. It also enables electronic transfers and payments. Additionally, correct TFN data enables members to track their super and consolidate multiple accounts online

≤0.1%

4. Non-individual TFNs

Number of instances where the reported TFN is for a 5non-individual

Correct TFN data ensures payments are streamed to the correct accounts and gives confidence to funds in the accuracy of the data provided during contributions and rollovers. It also enables electronic transfers and payments. Additionally, correct TFN data enables members to track their super and consolidate multiple accounts online

≤0.03%

5. Timeliness of MCS lodgment

Number of original MCSs lodged within the prescribed timeframe

Timely and complete lodgment of the MCS ensures we are able to assess and pay government contributions in a timely manner. It also ensures member information is displayed in myGov as soon as possible.

≥95% within seven days

6. Completeness of MCS lodgment

Compares the 'number of distinct individuals with open, open & lost and closed pension accounts’ reported on the MCS with the 'number of members’ reported on the fund's income tax return

Timely and complete lodgment of the MCS ensures we are able to assess and pay government contributions in a timely manner. It also ensures member information is displayed in myGov as soon as possible.

90%

7. 'Open and Lost' MCS accounts

Compares the 'number of lost un-contactable members’ from the Lost Member Register with the 'number of members with account status open and lost’ in MCS

Accurate reporting of member status of open and lost accounts allows members to view and consolidate accounts in myGov

90% – 110%

8. Lost members >65 years

Number of members over 65 years old on the LMR

Accurate and current LMS & USM data is fundamental to our important work of reuniting members with lost or unclaimed super. This information also ensures members are able to view accurate account information in myGov

≤1.91

9. Lost accounts <$6,000

Number of members with an account balance under $6000 on the LMR

Accurate and current LMS & USM data is fundamental to our important work of reuniting members with lost or unclaimed super. This information also ensures members are able to view accurate account information in myGov.

≤1.91%

10. Timeliness of USM

Number of original USMs lodged within the prescribed timeframe

Accurate and current LMS & USM data is fundamental to our important work of reuniting members with lost or unclaimed super. This information also ensures members are able to view accurate account information in myGov.

≥95% within 7 days

11 & 12. Timeliness of co-contribution and LISC remittance PVAs

Timeframe during which a fund reaches a total of 98% of co-contributions and LISC remittance PVAs lodged

Timely lodgment of remittance payment variation advices (PVA) enables us to redirect payments to eligible member accounts as soon as possible to maximise interest income on member benefits.

≥98% within 14 days

Indicators improved

The results for all four tax file number (TFN) indicators improved slightly from last year. This reflects the industry’s effort to improve the quality of their data in preparing for event-based reporting via MAAS and MATS.

We’ve also seen an improvement in several other indicators from 2017, including:

  • timeliness of MCS lodgment
  • completeness of MCS accounts
  • open and lost member accounts
  • lost members over 65 years of age.

Note: We are cognisant that the result for the open and lost MCS accounts indicator can be impacted by timing differences in the lodgment of the MCS and the MAAS.

Indicators declined

There has been a further decline from 2017 of the lost accounts under $6,000 indicator:

  • Only 43.67% of funds met the benchmark, which is the lowest result since the RDF began in 2014 - reuniting members with their lost super will be one of our key focus areas over the coming year, and we will be engaging with funds, especially where their results are below the benchmark.
  • We encourage funds to be proactive regarding their lost members, and envisage that the provision of an address functionality built into the MAAS will assist funds in achieving this goal.

We also saw a decline in the results for three of the five timeliness indicators:

  • Of particular concern is the decline in the result for timeliness of low income super contribution (LISC) remittance payment variation advice (PVA)s, which has gone from 76.4% in 2017 to 63.58% in 2018., with the results for timeliness of USM and timeliness of co-contribution remittance PVAs also declined from 2017.
  • With PVA reporting, we’ve seen cases where funds have submitted a payment to us without a message - we’ve also seen cases where the payment reference number used for a payment does not match with one reported in the message.

Key areas for improvement

Based on the 2018 results, we have identified the top three areas where we would like to see some improvement in reporting moving forward. These are:

  • Lost accounts under $6,000

    Funds should ensure that any lost members with account balances under $6,000 on the relevant unclaimed money day (that is, 30 June or 31 December each year) are reported and paid to us as unclaimed super money by the lodgment due date.
  • Lost members over 65 years old

    While the indicator improved to 65% this year, we would like to see some further improvement in the indicator. Where a member has attained 65 years old, and has had no contributions for two years and no contact for five years, funds are required to make reasonable efforts to contact the member. If funds are unable to contact the member, the benefit is required to be paid to us as unclaimed super money.
  • Timeliness of co-contribution and LISC remittance PVAs

    There has been a decline in the percentage of funds meeting both of the timeliness of PVA indicators. Reporting and paying PVAs to us in a timely manner is important as it allows us to redirect a member’s entitlements to an active account held in another fund.

Supporting funds in 2018

During the 2018 calendar year, we engaged with our industry partners to implement event based reporting via the MAAS and the MATS.

Our engagement approach had a strong service focus, through our industry and consultative forums, one to one engagements and hyper care arrangements whilst funds on-boarded.

We also assisted funds by providing support with:

  • mergers and successor fund transfers
  • resolving voluntary disclosures
  • relationship management
  • assurance activities.

We conducted assurance activities when funds continued to fall outside benchmarks for some indicators, or had systemic issues across multiple reporting obligations.

We supported funds that were undertaking a merger or successor fund transfer with guidance and administrative support. This is because SFTs present a significant potential risk to the integrity of super fund data of fund members. We also assisted funds if they had a change in administrator or a change in information technology platforms.

We are currently working on further improvements to the successor fund transfer (SFT) protocol advice and guidance to assist funds through the member reporting aspects of this event. Funds are strongly encouraged to contact our client relationship (CRT) team for help and support by emailing us at SuperCRT@ato.gov.au

Funds were encouraged to use their RDF results to examine their systems and processes, and make voluntary disclosures of any reporting issues that were identified. We continued to work with funds to minimise adverse member reporting impacts. Funds can continue to send their voluntary disclosures to SuperCRT@ato.gov.au for actioning.

See also:

We met with 22 key clients during April–June 2019 to discuss their results and further understand their operating environment.

A webinar, 2018 Large Fund Diagnostic ReportExternal Link, was also recorded and released to discuss the 2018 RDF report and results and is available on the ATO website.

Future of the APRA Fund Diagnostic Report

Following the shift from an annual member contributions statement reporting system, and to event based reporting, it is important that we look at different ways to assist funds in meeting their member reporting obligations. This includes adapting how we communicate a funds’ member reporting performance back to them in a more timely manner.

We will continue to work with a specific purpose industry co-design group to progress the design of this new report.

QC82628