Add new comment

Unfortunately Hedware it appears you have completely missed the point entirely in your commentary.
I was not referring to a comparison between low level or basic advice and comprehensive advice.
I also did not mention a restriction or exclusivity to industry funds at all.
I fully understand if an industry fund member wishes to seek more comprehensive advice they can engage an adviser.
Your response therefore appears to support the notion that charging an Intra Fund advice fee to every single member for low level or basic advice irrespective of whether they access or receive this low level or basic advice is ethically and morally acceptable and not deemed to be a fee for no service.
If, in your mind it's not a fee for no service, please explain exactly how charging someone for something they haven't received is in that member's best interest and how this practice does not breach the Trustee duties and responsibility to these members who are paying for something they have not used.
Please also explain why charging every single member of a fund a mandatory fee for services they may only access intermittently or not at all is not specifically defined as a retainer and therefore subject to individual member authorisation, FDS and Opt In requirements for that fee to continue to be deducted.
If the Intra-Fund advice fee is charged and the member has not received the services relevant to that fee, then the fund would need to cease charging that fee.
I look forward to your reply at your earliest convenience.