Add new comment

I work as an adviser for a super fund, providing intrafund advice. I hold undergrad, post-grad and financial advice specific qualifications. Our fund does not provide advice on opening new accounts or consolidation of funds as an intrafund advice service.

Clients are told before they meet with us and then again during the meeting that this advice is only regarding the funds within their superannuation account with this fund. They can receive advice on how their money is invested, contribution rules and caps and the level of insurance they hold with the fund. They receive an SOA within a week (usually within 2 days). They don't have to pay an additional fee for the service.

If they have more complex advice needs or require advice on consolidation (to us or another of the several funds, both retail and industry depending on client needs and goals, on the APL), they're referred to an adviser that doesn't have these restrictions on them.

I don't see how my role fits into the 'evil and conflicted' distribution stereotype peddled here, but the vitriol flows so freely on these article comments. I certainly provide a retention benefit indirectly, by doing a good job and providing good service the people I speak with know they are on track and as a result are less likely to seek advice elsewhere.

I have appointments every week with people who have previously been recommended an SMSF or a wrap platform with a 15 fund portfolio that needed quarterly rebalancing; they're usually very unhappy with the complexity that added to their lives and extremely disappointed with the returns they achieved even before advice fees had been paid.

If more advisers could make a living out of providing advice on the usually adequate funds a lot of people find themselves in, they would, however as many can't demonstrate the value they can add without using a fancy product to sell the advice they are stuck perpetuating the same old cycle.