UNCLASSIFIED - SAMPLE ONLY
A confidential report to the trustee of
Wayne Enterprises Superannuation Fund
ABN: 99888888888
Following the very positive response to last year’s Member Reporting diagnostic reports, I am
pleased this year to be able to provide your report much earlier and with the following
A tailored report forenhancements:
funds on their 2014 reporting timeliness and accuracy and use of ATO online
services
•
•
•
•
comparison of your performance from last year
better taking into account approved deferral requests
refined benchmarks
revamped the information page with formulas used to determine scores where
possible
• Inclusion of statistics on employer contributions via SuperStream
I encourage you to use this report as a tool to assess your own performance and identify
priorities for improvement, as well as to voluntarily disclose any significant errors in past
reporting.
If you wish to arrange a time to discuss this report or have any queries, please contact us at
[email protected]
Regards
John Shepherd
Assistant Commissioner
Superannuation
UNCLASSIFIED - SAMPLE ONLY
Report for Wayne Enterprises Superannuation Fund
ABN: 99888888888
NSUPER
Report date 11/03/2016
1E+08
Fund background
Administrator/s
WESS Limited
Administrator ABN
Administrator relationship
12345678912
An industry administrator
Software
Head office city
Fund type
Benefit structure
IN HOUSE
Gotham City
Industry fund
Accumulation Fund
Introduction
As part of the ATO’s large super fund risk differentiation framework, your fund has been given an overall risk categorisation by examining the consequence and
likelihood of your fund's non-compliance with its superannuation reporting obligations. There are four broad categories: higher risk, key client, medium risk and lower
risk. Funds categorised as higher risk or key client have significant membership and contribution levels, while lower and medium risk categories capture smaller
funds. Key client and lower risk funds are those ranked low in likelihood as they have higher compliance with their reporting obligations. The combination of the
likelihood and consequence indicators also enables your fund to be ranked, determining your fund's overall position in the industry, out of a population of 261 large
funds.
Categorisations and rankings have been calculated using data reported to the ATO relating to the 2014–15 financial year and extracted from ATO systems as at 31
December 2015.
2015
Your risk categorisation
Your fund's ratings for
consequence and likelihood
are:
2014
Rating
Rank
Rating
Rank
Consequence
5.0
1/261
5.0
1/265
This ranking is solely from a 'consequence' perspective.
Likelihood
2.0
73/256
2.48
42/236
This ranking is solely from a 'likelihood' perspective.
Key Client
7/256
Key Client
6/237
Overall ranking; funds ranked first by category (higher
risk, key client, medium risk, lower risk) then likelihood.
Overall
Your position in the industry
The following chart illustrates your fund's risk categorisation based on our rating of your consequence (Y axis) and likelihood (X axis):
Your fund's
2015 rating
Your fund's
2014 rating
5.0
4.5
Key client
Higher risk
Lower risk
Medium risk
Your fund's consequence rating
is based on its relative ranking
on a number of key indicators,
such as the size of your
membership (both number and
value of) and the volume of
your lost members.
In summary, it is an estimate of
your fund's relative size in the
industry.
Consequence
4.0
How is consequence
determined?
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Likelihood
How is likelihood determined?
Your fund's likelihood rating is based on its performance against a series of benchmarks across a range of super related
obligations (indicators). The specific likelihood indicators, their benchmarks
and your fund's score are outlined in the table following.
Your results against the indicators
Indicator*
Personal contributions with no TFN
Correct TFN quoted
Duplicate TFNs
Non-individual TFNs
Timeliness of MCS lodgment**
Completeness of MCS lodgment***
'Open and Lost' MCS accounts
Lost members >65 years
Lost accounts <$2,000
Timeliness of LMS
Timeliness of USM**
Timeliness of Co-cont remittance PVAs**
Timeliness of LISC remittance PVAs**
2015
Benchmark
<= 0.05%
>= 97%
<= 0.1%
<= 0.03%
>=95% within 7 days
>=90%
90% - 110%
<= 1.91%
<= 1.91%
within 7 days
>=95% within 7 days
>= 98% within 14 days
>= 98% within 14 days
Result
0.00%
96.79%
0.14%
0.01%
100.00%
95.47%
53.34%
1.10%
22.37%
On time
100.00%
99.56%
99.89%
Score
2
4
4
2
1
2
5
2
5
1
1
2
2
Ranking (by likelihood)
195/230
179/254
215/229
171/246
215/255
47/183
172/192
102/207
172/207
1/237
1/220
135/188
209/213
Overall met or exceeded the expected standard for 9 of 13 benchmarks.
* For a more detailed description of the indicators, how they are calculated and 'ranking' please refer to the explanatory notes on page 4
** The result represents the percentage of lodgments made within the benchmark. Refer to FAQs for further explanation.
*** Based on industry feedback on last year's diagnostic report benchmarks for Completeness of MCS lodgment were changed
What do these results mean?
Green Your fund is performing well, at least meeting the expected standard.
Amber Your fund has not met the expected standard, but not of major concern.
Red A potential focus area for your fund to investigate.
NA Your fund has not been rated against this indicator (typically due to non-lodgment).
Page 2 of 4
2014
Result
0.01%
92.70%
0.14%
0.14%
100.00%
114.42%
65.00%
2.05%
27.41%
On time
100.00%
99.96%
99.81%
Score
3
5
4
5
1
4
5
4
5
1
1
2
2
UNCLASSIFIED - SAMPLE ONLY
Report for Wayne Enterprises Superannuation Fund
Where your fund sits in the industry—for reference
ATO statistics
2015^
2,411,321
1,100,900
1,051,393
64,903
2,000,187
$6,619,000,555
$1,582,555,222
$7,852,582,441
$95,158,999,999
2,391,240
32,071
Member Contributions Statement (MCS)
Number of original MCS
Number of active MCS
Number of inactive MCS
'Open and lost' MCSs
Distinct individuals with (open and 'open & lost') accts on MCS
Employer contributions
Personal contributions
All contributions
Member account balance
Number of prior year original MCS
Number of prior year amended MCS
Rank
2/254
1/242
3/248
1/198
2/246
1/231
3/230
1/242
1/241
2/253
16/194
^As at 31 December 2015
2015^
2,095,062
$6,222,369,74
$119,000,555
$22,642,108
$230,529,198
Fund Income Tax Return (FITR)
Number of members
Assessable employer contributions
Assessable personal contributions
No TFN quoted contributions
Management expenses
Administration expenses
2015^
34,621
$354,006,874
42,945
$335,000,555
2015^
2,646
$8,663,175
Rank
2/203
1/203
5/124
6/124
TFN reporting
Number of incorrect TFNs reported
Value of incorrect TFNs reported
2015^
55,601
$17,013,696
608,517
$144,405,136
2014^^
53,881
$507,586,380
54,017
$462,604,915
2014^^
12,102
$10,934,324
Rank
1/220
3/189
2014^^
12,514
$19,210,089
Rank
3/220
3/220
2/230
2/230
2014^^
61,073
$19,914,426
522,528
$132,062,225
^^As at 31 December 2014
2015
112,402
110,896
722
593
2014
Not assessed
11/212
11/212
4/138
4/138
As at 22 January 2016
Employer contributions
Transactions compliant with SuperStream*
Transactions non-compliant with SuperStream
SuperStream quartile compliance**
72%
28%
3
2015
89%
11%
2
As at September 2015
As at December 2015
2014
Not assessed
*Transactions via Channels A & B
**Based on percentage of complying transactions
Excess contributions and Division 293 tax
Members with excess concessional contributions (ECC)
Release authorities of ECC*
Members with excess non-concessional contributions (ENCC)
Release authorities of ENCC*
Members with Div 293 tax (accumulation accounts)
2015
22,555
1,148
427
50
11,777
As at 31 December 2015
*Does not include release authorities issued prior to 1 January 2015
Page 3 of 4
Rank
5/145
5/138
Rank
2/219
1/188
^^As at 31 December 2014
^As at 31 December 2015
SuperTick
Number of unique TFNs validated
Number of validated TFNs reported on MCS
Number of unique TFN corrected
Number of corrected TFNs reported on MCS
Rank
2/199
1/199
2/118
5/118
^^As at 31 December 2014
^As at 31 December 2015
Government contributions
Number of Co-contributions
Value of Co-contributions
Number of LISC
Value of LISC
Rank
1/175
1/168
7/131
1/98
-/82
1/136
^^As at 31 December 2014
Rank
15/149
9/136
^As at 31 December 2015
2015^
7,890
$14,261,297
2014^^
2,089,973
$5,652,609,246
$90,974,003
$52,514,086
$0
$222,538,083
^^As at 31 December 2014
^As at 31 December 2015
Unclaimed Super Money (USM)
Number of members
Unclaimed money remitted amount
Rank
2/251
1/239
4/246
1/194
NA
1/231
3/230
1/239
2/238
2/284
^^As at 31 December 2014
Rank
2/182
1/176
9/136
1/102
-/83
2/146
^As at 18 January 2016
Lost Member Register (LMR) (total fund holdings on the LMR)
Number of lost uncontactable accounts
Value of lost uncontactable accounts
Number of inactive accounts
Value of inactive accounts
2014^^
2,391,248
1,341,556
1,049,682
82,894
NA
$5,672,432,081
$990,654,022
$6,795,981,998
$78,290,891,374
2,325,982
Not assessed
3/229
4/176
6/178
4/95
2/224
2014
Not assessed
Rank
3/230
4/230
2/240
2/240
UNCLASSIFIED - SAMPLE ONLY
Report for Wayne Enterprises Superannuation Fund
Explanatory notes—to assist in understanding your report
Data and calculations
The data used for this report is based on information reported to us in the fund income tax returns, member contributions statements, lost
Data sources and limitations
member reporting, unclaimed super money reporting and payment variation advices. All ATO 2015 year data relates to reporting for the
period ending 30 June 2015, and is 'as at' 31 December 2015 except for the income tax return which is 'as at' 18 January 2016. All ATO 2014
year data is as at 31 December 2014.
The report has some limitations, including:
• it is based on data recorded in ATO systems and may in some instances be different from fund data due to timing and processing events
• the indicators are limited to quantitative data readily available in our systems to produce an automated report, so is not a complete picture
of a fund's super reporting performance.
Rankings have been provided to allow funds to easily see where they sit in the industry for a variety of characteristics.
Rankings
For the likelihood indicators, funds are ranked in terms of the apparent level of compliance. For example, the fund(s) reporting the lowest
proportion of duplicate TFNs will be ranked 1 for the ‘duplicate TFNs’ indicator. From a likelihood perspective, the total number of funds
ranked is less than the fund population (261) as some funds have not lodged sufficient reports to justify a likelihood ranking.
For the ATO statistics, funds are ranked from largest to smallest for each attribute. The populations out of which funds are ranked differ from
statistic to statistic; this is because funds are not ranked in areas for which they have not reported a value. For example, a fund ranked
‘3/230’ for personal contributions has reported the third highest value of personal contributions, out of the 230 funds to report any personal
contributions.
Rounding and decimal places
For some indicators, a fund may receive a score of 2 rather than 1 despite appearing as though they have a 'perfect' score (i.e. 0.00%). This
may occur where the threshold for a score of 1 is no instances (eg no duplicate TFNs reported), but the fund has reported a small number
(eg, four duplicates out of 100,000 TFNs reported). As the report only displays up to two decimal places, a small number of instances may
cause the actual percentage to be, per the example, 0.004%, but will be displayed as 0.00%.
Indicator descriptions
Personal contributions with no
TFN
The formulas used to determine the scores are shown as applicable
Percentage of personal contributions with no TFN = Number of instances of MCSs reported with personal contributions without a TFN X 100
Number of instances MCSs reported with personal contributions
Thresholds (for scores of 1 to 4): 0%, <=0.01%, <=0.05%, <=0.1%
Percentage of correct TFN quoted = Number of quoted TFNs matched with the ATO derived TFNs X 100
Total number of MCSs reported
Thresholds (for scores of 1 to 4): >=99%, >=98%, >=97%, >=95%.
Percentage of duplicate TFN reported = Number of instances where same TFN is reported for different individuals X 100
Total number of MCSs reported with a TFN
Thresholds (for scores of 1 to 4): 0%, <=0.05%, <=0.1%, <=0.25%.
(Refer to FAQ's for further explanation)
Percentage of non-individual TFN reported = Number of instances where reported TFN is for a non-individual* X 100
Total number of distinct TFNs reported in the MCSs
Thresholds (for scores of 1 to 4): 0%, <=0.01%, <=0.03%, <=0.1%.
(*The TFNs belongs to company, trust, partnership etc.)
Percentage of MCS lodgment = Number of original MCSs lodged within the prescribed timeframe X 100
Total number of original MCSs lodged
Correct TFN quoted
Duplicate TFNs
Non-individual TFNs
Timeliness of MCS lodgment
Percentage lodged
Timeframe
Score
85%
On time
1
90%
Upto 3 days late
2
95%
Upto 7 days late
3
99%
Upto 30 days late
4
99%
after 30 days
5
(Note: The scores are based on the lodgment percentage accumulated within the prescribed timeframes as per the above table.
(This data incorporates any extensions to due dates. Refer to FAQ's for further explanation)
Completeness of MCS lodgment
'Open and Lost' MCS accounts
Lost members >65 years
Lost accounts <$2,000
Timeliness of LMS
Timeliness of USM
Percentage of completeness of MCS lodgment = Number of distinct individuals with (open and 'open & lost') accounts on the MCS X 100
Number of individual members reported on the fund's income tax return
Thresholds (under 100%, for scores of 4 to 1): >=75%, >=90%, >=95%, >=99%.
Thresholds (over 100%, for scores of 1 to 3): <=101%, <=110%, >110%.
(Note: This indicator measures whether a sufficient number of MCSs are lodged as compared to number of members on the ITR. Any score
above 90% will result in a fund passing this benchmark and also compensates for ITR and MCS timing difference.
Percentage of 'Open and Lost' MCS accounts = Number of lost - uncontactable accounts from the Lost Member Register X 100
Number of MCSs with account status "Open and Lost"
Thresholds (under 100%, for scores of 4 to 1): >=75%, >=90%, >=95%, >=99%.
Thresholds (over 100%, for scores of 1 to 4): <=101%, <=105%, <=110%, <=125%.
Percentage of Lost members >65 years = Number of members age over 65 years on the Lost Member Register X 100
Total number of member on the Lost Member Register
Thresholds (for scores of 1 to 4): <=0.69%, <=1.4%, <=1.91%, <=3.08%.
Percentage of Lost accounts <$2,000 = Number of members with balance under $2000 on the Lost Member Register X 100
Total number of member on the Lost Member Register
Thresholds (for scores of 1 to 4): <=0.69%, <=1.4%, <=1.91%, <=3.08%.
Timeliness of the first lodgment (either a lost member statement or non lodgment advice)
Thresholds: (on time - 1, three days late - 2, seven days late - 3, or 30 days late - 4).
(This data incorporates any extensions to due dates)
Percentage of USM lodgment = Number of original USMs lodged within the prescribed timeframe X 100
Total number of original USMs lodged
Percentage lodged
Timeframe
Score
85%
On time
1
90%
Upto 3 days late
2
95%
Upto 7 days late
3
99%
Upto 30 days late
4
99%
after 30 days
5
(Note: The scores are based on the lodgment percentage accumulated within the prescribed timeframes as per the above table.
(This data incorporates any extensions to due dates. Refer to FAQ's for further explanation)
Timeliness of co-contribution
remittance PVA
Co-contribution remittance PVAs need to be lodged within 35 days from the day after the remittance advice was received from the ATO.
This indicator is based on the timeframe (as prescribed in the table below) during which a fund reaches a total of 98% of co-contributions
remittance PVAs lodged.
Percentage lodged
Timeframe
Score
Timeliness of LISC remittance
PVA
98%
On time
1
98%
Upto 7 days late
2
98%
Upto 14 days late
3
98%
Upto 28 days late
4
98%
after 28 days
5
(Refer to FAQ's for further explanation)
LISC remittance PVAs need to be lodged within 35 days from the day after the remittance advice was received from the ATO.
This indicator is based on the timeframe (as prescribed in the table below) during which a fund reaches a total of 98% of LISC remittance
PVAs lodged.
Percentage lodged
Timeframe
Score
98%
On time
1
98%
Upto 7 days late
2
98%
Upto 14 days late
3
98%
Upto 28 days late
4
98%
after 28 days
5
(Refer to FAQ's for further explanation)
Page 4 of 4