Add new comment

Yes it is discriminatory and it's a disgrace that ASIC are allowing it. There is something rotten going on at ASIC and there is a pattern of behaviour this is very concerning when it comes to these funds. Why did ASIC use the brand name 'Industry Fund' in their sample statement of advice? Why do they tolerate these funds charging low income, disengaged members with insurance premiums for policies they don't know exist and in some cases can't even make a claim on them? How does this meet the requirement to act 'honestly, fairly and efficiently'? Why do they allow these funds to issue super fund comparisons which are blatantly wrong (I have had two clients show me a report which contained the wrong version of their super fund and poor performing investments which have never been in their portfolio). Using Chant West as cover is no excuse. If they can't get the comparisons right, it should not be allowed. Gosh, if I gave a client a comparison report and it contained false information and was not in the form of an SOA, there would be hell to pay. Yet they get away with it? Why do they allow these funds to get away with the misleading 'whole of fund' performance comparisons? Are ASIC really that dumb that they don't understand how this distorts the statistics? Finally, look at Australian Super's 'balanced fund'. It contains an allocation of just 21% in cash and fixed interest investments. That is NOT a balanced fund, not even close. Yet despite all of these shortcomings, ASIC chose this fund as their default for their own employees!