Add new comment

Hedware, again you have not addressed my question.
You have made your opinion very clear regarding grandfathered commissions to which I disagree with your analysis.
However, you have failed to make comment regarding the charging of Intra Fund advice fees for no service received.
Your analogy of grandfathered commissions being a "lazy tax" must also lead you directly to relate Intra Fund fees as being
" lazy fees".
Your terminology of " lazy" would relate to getting paid something for nothing and therefore a fund being paid a basic advice fee for the provision of nothing is very clearly lazy.
The point of my question was to ask if charging a fee to all members of a fund for the purpose of advice when no service or advice has been delivered, requested or received is ethically and morally acceptable.
It is impossible to argue this is not a fee for no service issue.
If you are advocating that grandfathered commissions should cease when service and advice is being provided and received, then you must also advocate that Intra Fund advice fees also cease even when basic advice has been provided.
You cant have it both ways.
What ASIC lists as acceptable as Intra Fund provided services is irrelevant.
Does ASIC state that it is acceptable to charge these fees when these services have not been provided ?
To argue that there is no improvement in the level and quality of financial advice regarding the payment of grandfathered commissions is not proven or substantiated at all.....it is a subjective opinion.
Just a simple yes or no to the question would be great.
Is it acceptable that Intra Fund advice fees are charged to members of a superannuation fund who do not access or receive these services?.....Yes or No ?