Add new comment

At least Trails paid by Institutions are known by at least the above 6 commentators to be important and a satisfactory way of compensating advisers who regularly contact clients invested in products which generate trails. There is nothing wrong with this system providing the compensation is declared and we all do that! At present as Agent 86 and I point out the CLIENTS will be the losers because we will simply institute a new direct charge to maintain our concern and interest in the welfare of our clients. So, ideally, if advisers continue to service clients, institutions will be better off financially, advisers will continue to be compensated, and the clients will be out of pocket!
All the result of the campaign against "Commissions'.
Let the almighty help those Members of Industry Funds who get no service, are put willy-nilly into Funds (perhaps as a SECRET deal between an employer and a Union) and then into asset allocations, without any education. And then the Members suffer from fictional quoted returns (e.g. Property valued occasionally, alternatives valued how?). Never forget the MTAA and their brush with the unmentionable, or the TWU. 2014 TWU Royal Commission evidence of NON DISCLOSURES, "Mr Stoljar told the hearing the fund was paying the TWU approximately $200,000 a year in directors' fees and a further $500,000 in reimbursements for salaries and expenses of numerous superannuation liaison officers employed by the TWU.
It also spent a further $100,000 in sponsorship.
Further, four of the nine directors were among the most senior officials of the TWU, including Michael Kaine, who headed the TWU's EBA negotiating team and was an alternate director of the super fund."