Hlib Chabaniuk

ASIC flags super fund valuation scrutiny gaps in review of unlisted assets

ASIC flags super fund valuation scrutiny gaps in review of unlisted assets
Super fund valuation gaps

Australia’s corporate regulator says stronger oversight is still needed in how superannuation funds and auditors assess unlisted investment values. The findings matter for member balances, reported returns and fees across a retirement system holding nearly A$4.8 trillion in assets under management.

Highlights

  • ASIC's Report 841 finds persistent weaknesses in how trustees and auditors value unlisted investments, with 42 super fund financial reports and six audits reviewed showing limited scrutiny of fund managers' assumptions.
  • ASIC warns that some trustees delay adjusting member liabilities after major investment write-downs and often provide inadequate detail on fair value hierarchy disclosures, increasing opacity for super fund members.
  • In 2026–27, ASIC will continue super fund financial reporting and audit surveillance, expand to 20 managed investment schemes, and consider regulatory or enforcement action for significant Corporations Act 2001 breaches.

Review findings and regulatory focus

As reported by ASIC, its second review into the financial reporting and audit of superannuation funds finds persistent concerns in how some trustees and auditors assess the value of unlisted investments.

In Report 841, "Accounting for your super: Super fund financial reporting and audit 2025–26", the regulator says its review of 42 registrable superannuation entity financial reports and six audits identifies repeated weaknesses around valuations. Trustees often rely on external fund managers for fair value information on externally managed unlisted investments, which can limit their ability to challenge key assumptions and estimates.

ASIC also says some trustees do not adjust member liabilities quickly enough after significant investment write-downs. It adds that fair value hierarchy disclosures often remain high level, offering limited detail on valuation techniques, inputs and judgments, making it harder for members to understand how some fair values are determined and the uncertainty involved.

ASIC Commissioner Kate O'Rourke says millions of Australians entrust superannuation trustees with their retirement savings, making accurate valuations and effective audit scrutiny essential. She says trustees cannot outsource responsibility for reliable investment valuations, even when external fund managers are involved.

Industry impact and next surveillance steps

ASIC says weak scrutiny creates a greater risk that reported values do not accurately reflect underlying assets, especially for private market assets and other unlisted investments that depend on significant judgment, assumptions and estimates.

On the audit side, the regulator says some auditors of externally managed investments do not adequately test the reliability of prices supplied by external fund managers or the methods, assumptions and data behind those valuations. For internally managed investments, some auditors do not obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence, ASIC says.

In 2026–27, ASIC plans to continue its surveillance of super fund financial reporting and audits and expand the program to managed investment schemes. It plans to review the financial reports of 20 registrable superannuation entities and 20 schemes, carry out four audit surveillances in each group, and consider regulatory or enforcement action where it sees significant breaches of the Corporations Act 2001.

O'Rourke says ASIC will keep working with the industry to improve the reporting and auditing of unlisted investments so members can have greater confidence in the reliability of their superannuation balances. She says trustees and auditors must address the ongoing concerns or face possible regulatory action.

Our earlier coverage of private-market pricing and trading trends for prediction market platforms Kalshi and Polymarket highlighted how investor sentiment can diverge sharply when valuations rely on market-based signals with uneven liquidity. We noted that differences in returns, pricing versus the latest funding-round benchmarks, and bid-ask volume mix pointed to contrasting depth and price discovery dynamics across the two firms.

This material may contain third-party opinions, none of the data and information on this webpage constitutes investment advice according to our Disclaimer. While we adhere to strict Editorial Integrity, this post may contain references to products from our partners.