Add new comment

I understand that having "Australian Super" at the door means you are at Australian Super but when they start giving "Financial Advice" at Australian Super why is it limited to Australian Super? If your logic is it is OK, then if a client turns up at an AMP Practice, why can they not give "Financial Advice" under the same rules.

Your comment that very few clients read an FSG meaningless I believe as the FSG is very clearly explained to each and every client - so if they don't read it they still know it's full content. If you believe they don't read an FSG, tell me what happens with an SOA, PDS (* many), client statements, FDS, Opt-in notices etc.

If a client can't read an FDS, how is a retail client to know that the "Financial Advice" given at AMP/Hillross etc is much more varied and very likely to include unrelated products (related platforms perhaps but not many related investments which is what matters) but if they see Australian Super the "Financial Advice" will be limited to Australian Super only and likely "inter fund advice" which as we all know, often rolls over external funds etc where the client may have better benefits - they just don't ever know.
An tell me, why is it OK to fund that "Financial Advice" from all members of an Industry Fund for the "benefit" of only those who receive the advice? I struggle to see how on earth this is not a "commission".
Simply, Industry Funds are acting on a business model that retail moved away from 20 years ago. Perhaps AMP would be better served having all "Financial Adviser" on salary and give inter-fund advice, paid for by all - but the client will not be better off.
I just fail to see how anyone can defend how the Industry Funds operate (not even mentioning their investment issues) simply because they have their name on the door?