Add new comment

As you will know from my previous posts that I support the notion of independent professional financial advisors who charge a fee for service for work done for clients. Accordingly I do not sport grandfathered commissions where a fee is charged for no service. It is immaterial whether the client is a member of a retail or industry fund.
Grandfathered commissions are a lazy tax. There's plenty of lazy taxes at work people don't shop around when renewing utilities, etc. I guess in a capitalist society that's buyer beware. Grandfathered commissions are the same lazy tax but superannuation is far more complicated and future impacting than is an electricity provider. I guess in a capitalist society that's buyer beware.
But another problem with grandfathered commissions is that there is no improvement to the level and quality of financial advice. It's makes for lazy financial advisors.
Grandfathered commissions are charged at a higher rate than basic Intra Fund fees. What can be provided as Intra-Fund fees is listed by ASIC.
If Intra-Fund advice is basic then I see that basic advice is being little different to the advice that non-industry fund managers provide. But as you say it may well be different in practice.
Getting back to my belief in independent professional financial advisors, grandfathered commissions are not doing anything for the reputation of independent professional advisors in the wider world. The subtleties
you see are not seen by the general public. They see rip-offs. That's reason enough for grandfathered commissions to be decommissioned asap. Grandfathered commissions are a rip-off.