Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Future Fund - Wonder how it is going?

Yay team! While there is the parliamentary process of passing legislation it appears the political process is now commencing which will involve some down-in-the dirt bare knuckle fighting (metaphorically) which will either shape the policy or kill it.

None of this is new, I'm sure that you remember that Rudd wanted to pay for the NBN by using the Future Fund.

From what I can see, it is only the left leaners and socialists wanting to raid the Future Fund, and any other pool of funds they see as fair game.

Rudd proposed selling $2.7 billion, to help with the cost of the NBN, then expected to cost $4.7 billion. as Labor looked ascendant against John Howard in 2007, opposition leader Rudd announced plans to tap the fund for money-making infrastructure projects.
“Like bears to a honey-pot, the leader of the opposition and the shadow treasurer want to drain the Future Fund of its earnings to spend on their election prospects. It is not theirs to take,” Peter Costello said.
Just before the 2007 election, the Coalition changed the law to introduce new protections to stop ministers from directing investments in particular businesses or activities. The amendments effectively Rudd-proofed the fund.
Labor eventually ditched its plan to use the fund. The NBN has gone on to cost more than $32 billion.

‘Like bears to a honey-pot’: how the Future Fund got political
Treasurer Jim Chalmers’ planned changes to the nation’s $230 billion savings account might be unfinished business for Labor.

When Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan proposed tapping into the Future Fund to pay for the national broadband network in 2007, Peter Costello accused the pair of stealing from the future.

“The first burglary is the hard one,” the then treasurer warned. “Once you have done the first burglary, the second and the third and the fourth get much easier.”

774872043125299906944769755fd2e44a126419.jpg
Peter Costello accused Kevin Rudd of wanting to drain the Future Fund’s earnings for election promises. Andrew Meares

Set up in 2006, Costello considers the $230 billion savings account as one of his signature achievements – mentioning it more than a dozen times in his memoir.

Nearly two decades later, Treasurer Jim Chalmers this week directed the Future Fund to prioritise investments in housing, renewable energy and infrastructure, calling them “national priorities”.

The Coalition quickly labelled the plan reckless.

Funded with surpluses from the resources boom of the early 2000s, the Howard government added funds from the Telstra privatisation, locking away money to pay for public service superannuation entitlements.

Costello’s intention was the $60 billion in savings would meet the unfunded liabilities by 2020 – expected to be worth $140 billion.

From the very start, Costello counselled against political interference and any move to spend its savings.

“No further contributions would be required,” he wrote in 2008. “From 2020 no payments from consolidated revenue would be required. Future generations would be relieved of that cost in its entirety.”

But as Labor looked ascendant against John Howard in 2007, opposition leader Rudd announced plans to tap the fund for money-making infrastructure projects.

Rudd proposed selling the remaining Telstra shares, worth $2.7 billion, to help with the cost of the NBN, then expected to cost $4.7 billion.

“We will not do anything which will stop us from meeting our target of public servant superannuation liabilities being fully funded by 2020,” shadow treasurer Swan said at the time.

Costello was unconvinced.

“Like bears to a honey-pot, the leader of the opposition and the shadow treasurer want to drain the Future Fund of its earnings to spend on their election prospects. It is not theirs to take,” he said.

Just before the 2007 election, the Coalition changed the law to introduce new protections to stop ministers from directing investments in particular businesses or activities. The amendments effectively Rudd-proofed the fund.

Labor eventually ditched its plan to use the fund. The NBN has gone on to cost more than $32 billion.

In 2014, Qantas shareholder activist Mark Carnegie called on the Abbott government to use the Future Fund to price any debt guarantee for the struggling airline.


He told The Australian Financial Review the fund could correctly price the market rate for the government, and do so at arms’ length.

At the fund’s official launch, Costello, then seen as Howard’s likely heir and a possible future prime minister, said he had given the directors the title “guardians” very deliberately.

“It is the board’s role to guard these assets against any attempt to steal them from future taxpayers and it is their role to protect the fund against future governments of any political persuasion which might try to use or appropriate them for their own purposes.”

Businessman David Murray was appointed as the first chairman, a position later held by Costello himself. He was succeeded by former Labor minister Greg Combet earlier this year.

In January, Murray pushed back on critics of the fund and warned against it becoming “a tempting target for politicisation”. He named checked economist Dimitri Burshtein, who advocates selling the fund’s assets to pay down government debt.

If the first burglary really is the hardest, Chalmers might just be coming for Peter Costello’s legacy.

Future Fund CEO’s great fear has arrived at his doorstep
For the past few years, Raphael Arndt has warned about the dangers posed to investors by government intervention. Now he’s getting real-life experience.
 
None of this is new, I'm sure that you remember that Rudd wanted to pay for the NBN by using the Future Fund.

Indeed.

As you may know there is another quiet battle going on in the background, although it may have been dropped but I doubt it, where the Government is encouraging superannuation funds to invest in national infrastructure because the "tax payer cannot afford it." Gentle note to Government. Those contributions to superannuation funds were, and are being, made by those very same tax payers.

Of course, superannuation is held by Trustees and not the Government and Trustees are required to act for the benefit of the members. I'm pretty sure if I were a Trustee of an industry fund, I could come up with an argument on how such an investment would be of benefit to the members of the fund.

Where there is a large pot of money which is growing, there is always a tendency to lose sight of actually whose money it actually is and its original purpose.

Out of pure curiosity on my part, I'm occasionally following legislation before Parliament regarding the 15% tax on superannuation valued above $3m. Another, albeit smaller, pot of money.
 
Indeed.

As you may know there is another quiet battle going on in the background, although it may have been dropped but I doubt it, where the Government is encouraging superannuation funds to invest in national infrastructure because the "tax payer cannot afford it." Gentle note to Government. Those contributions to superannuation funds were, and are being, made by those very same tax payers.

Of course, superannuation is held by Trustees and not the Government and Trustees are required to act for the benefit of the members. I'm pretty sure if I were a Trustee of an industry fund, I could come up with an argument on how such an investment would be of benefit to the members of the fund.

Where there is a large pot of money which is growing, there is always a tendency to lose sight of actually whose money it actually is and its original purpose.

Out of pure curiosity on my part, I'm occasionally following legislation before Parliament regarding the 15% tax on superannuation valued above $3m. Another, albeit smaller, pot of money.

I believe that superannuation funds should be encouraged to invest in housing, with tax incentives.

It happens in Europe; long term housing infrastructure is built and maintained by investment groups.

Why give tax incentives? There are a few reasons, such as building cost blow outs and bankruptcies as we can see over the past few years. And investment returns are relatively low compared to other investments, during normal cycles, having a tax incentive to overcome the lower returns and allowing the super funds to allow long term renters.

The Future Fund was not designed for that, and the precedent that Dr Jim Chalmers with the help of Mr Greg Combet are setting is dangerous.
 
Out of pure curiosity on my part, I'm occasionally following legislation before Parliament regarding the 15% tax on superannuation valued above $3m. Another, albeit smaller, pot of money.

I'm not sure how I feel about that, yet. Could 'bracket creep' similar to income tax bracket creep affect the value? $3m sounds like a lot today, but with inflation and expenses continually increasing, that figure might not go so far. I did see mention of having the amount indexed with inflation, but that is not fool proof.

Another issue is incentive; why should I work my guts out and save for retirement if the government is going to tax me harder than the next person that took it easy and went on holidays saving minimal? Yes, I got a tax incentive for saving but that tax incentive to save might all be taken because I saved 'too much'.

More information is required.
 
Another issue is incentive; why should I work my guts out and save for retirement if the government is going to tax me harder than the next person that took it easy and went on holidays saving minimal? Yes, I got a tax incentive for saving but that tax incentive to save might all be taken because I saved 'too much'.

More information is required.
Just take solace from the fact, not only have you paid your way through life, your taxes have helped many others, who weren't fortunate enough to experience the reward and pleasure from partaking in employment.
 
Just take solace from the fact, not only have you paid your way through life, your taxes have helped many others, who weren't fortunate enough to experience the reward and pleasure from partaking in employment.

I will, while my muscles ache and my hairline grows thinner, my eyesight withers, joints complain, and I help pay the wages of doctors and nurses that help maintain my body and mind caused by working 55 to 60 hours a week to ensure my business stays profitable so as my staff have a job.
 
I will, while my muscles ache and my hairline grows thinner, my eyesight withers, joints complain, and I help pay the wages of doctors and nurses that help maintain my body and mind caused by working 55 to 60 hours a week to ensure my business stays profitable so as my staff have a job.
I know the feeling, I retired after two knee replacements and a right hip replacement. Lol
I tried to go back to work, but couldn't pass a medical.
Fortunately I always saved and invested, plus did all my maintenance work, so I never joined the CES queue.
 
Off topic, so I will be quick.. I'm trying my best to avoid those, but bloody age has a different view. right knee has a constant arthritis low ache, and now my right should has decided to join in ;-(
Age does that to you, here's a tip, keep your old joints as long as possible.
Replacements aren't as good as originals, they only remove the pain. ;)
Appologies everyone, back on topic.
 
I'm not sure how I feel about that, yet. Could 'bracket creep' similar to income tax bracket creep affect the value? $3m sounds like a lot today, but with inflation and expenses continually increasing, that figure might not go so far. I did see mention of having the amount indexed with inflation, but that is not fool proof.

Another issue is incentive; why should I work my guts out and save for retirement if the government is going to tax me harder than the next person that took it easy and went on holidays saving minimal? Yes, I got a tax incentive for saving but that tax incentive to save might all be taken because I saved 'too much'.

More information is required.

To save you even more joy, I won't mention the Aged care reforms which have recently been introduced. Ah, those dear, lovely self-funded retirees with more money than the other guy.
 
I'm not sure how I feel about that, yet. Could 'bracket creep' similar to income tax bracket creep affect the value? $3m sounds like a lot today, but with inflation and expenses continually increasing, that figure might not go so far. I did see mention of having the amount indexed with inflation, but that is not fool proof.

Another issue is incentive; why should I work my guts out and save for retirement if the government is going to tax me harder than the next person that took it easy and went on holidays saving minimal? Yes, I got a tax incentive for saving but that tax incentive to save might all be taken because I saved 'too much'.

More information is required.
yes F.I.R.E. ( financially independent , retire early ) is a growing movement in the US

maybe that will start to catch on here

hundreds and hundreds of post by folks hating the place at Megacorp and they would rather ( partly or fully ) retire , a decade or more early

the upside is these folks learn to be really financially astute ( and i can't see that as a bad thing , unless you are a fund manager )
 
Many grizzled about Australia not having a sovereign wealth fund and now we have one, we can't wait to spend it.

Great example for the young, on how to not spend more than you earn. Not. ;)
This is what creates an aversion to paying tax.

There'd be a lot more willingness of most people to be taxed if they could see that everyone was having a go to the best of their abilities, whilst accepting that will vary but OK as long as everyone's at least making an effort, and that government was using the money for long term benefit of the nation. :2twocents
 
I thought this article was interesting, especially the part where the reporter mentions the future fund is worth a bit more than the publis service obligation.
So therefore in reality there really isn't a lot of money there, the majority of it is already allocated to future debt.


From the article:
In fact, the value of the Future Fund ($225bn) already exceeds the likely peak value of the PSS liability ($190bn), which will be reached around 2030. There is still a large liability associated with separate schemes for the Australian defence force, but this could be addressed by including funding explicitly in the defence budget rather than through an off-budget fund.
 
I thought this article was interesting, especially the part where the reporter mentions the future fund is worth a bit more than the publis service obligation.
So therefore in reality there really isn't a lot of money there, the majority of it is already allocated to future debt.


From the article:
In fact, the value of the Future Fund ($225bn) already exceeds the likely peak value of the PSS liability ($190bn), which will be reached around 2030. There is still a large liability associated with separate schemes for the Australian defence force, but this could be addressed by including funding explicitly in the defence budget rather than through an off-budget fund.

I hope that's not true, but if it is that's more reason that governments should not try to sway the investment criteria.

I haven't read the article that you posted, but I presume they mean if the whole lot was used at once to pay all the PSS liability. That is not correct and deceiving, the whole PS will not retire in one day.

Funded with surpluses from the resources boom of the early 2000s, the Howard government added funds from the Telstra privatisation, locking away money to pay for public service superannuation entitlements.
Costello’s intention was the $60 billion in savings would meet the unfunded liabilities by 2020 – expected to be worth $140 billion.
From the very start, Costello counselled against political interference and any move to spend its savings.
“No further contributions would be required,” he wrote in 2008. “From 2020 no payments from consolidated revenue would be required. Future generations would be relieved of that cost in its entirety.”

Post #21
 
From the article:
In fact, the value of the Future Fund ($225bn) already exceeds the likely peak value of the PSS liability ($190bn), which will be reached around 2030. There is still a large liability associated with separate schemes for the Australian defence force, but this could be addressed by including funding explicitly in the defence budget rather than through an off-budget fund.

like the public service is going to reduce in size by around 2030 , pull the other one it plays Ripley's episodes

i wonder what smoke and mirrors they would use to get close to that

it that were so the ALP would never win another election and many industry super funds would shrink to zero influence ( it seems pensioners no longer vote ALP )
 
Top