Maybe as they arent working for all the clients that pay thier wages? You cant see anything wrong with that? If they stood on thier own two feet and only operated on fee for service only this would be different, but to subsidise advisers through everyones member fees isnt in the members best interests. How can it be? Your example of amp et all isnt a true comparison thier advisers need to charge clients directly they dont get paid wages.
In order to give you the best site experience, we need to know what kind of investor you are. Please select the title that best describes you below.
Financial Advisers - Investment
Financial Advisers - SMSFs
Individual Investors with SMSFs
Financial Advisers - Insurance
Accountants and Solicitors
Financial Services Professional