Add new comment

Quite obviously Eva Scheerlinck has absolutely no understanding whatsoever of previous and grandfathered rules governing retirement income products and Centrelink assessment, capital gains tax implications or pricing of some older products which are as competitive and comparative to current product.
Her lack of understanding regarding the best interest duty would always require an adviser to assess both advantages and disadvantages to the client relative to the client's objectives and goals.
It may well be in the clients best interest to remain within an existing product or strategy for a range of reasons.
This totally misguided assumption by commentators, politicians and self interest groups that an older product is automatically disadvantaging the client is wrong.
It's an easy way by which these groups can again turn the focus back around onto advisers as being the conflicted party when in reality the AIST in their commentary is about as conflicted as possible.
The Royal Commission did not refer so called profit to member funds (or profit to union funds) simply because it was a targeted witch hunt with an agenda that was not balanced and skewed and influenced by individual ideology.
It is entirely clear that almost every single industry super fund charges every member an advice fee for ad hoc or general advice irrespective of whether that member ever accesses or utilises that option.
If that isn't fee for no service Eva Scheerlinck then explain exactly what is is and have the courage to refer it to ASIC as a breach.
The utterly inequitable treatment and assessment between the industry super funds and the remainder of the financial services industry is a disgrace. It is unbalanced and manifestly unfair.
The AIST commentary is always and only ever to push their own agenda rather than intellectual and reasoned debate for the benefit of the entire financial services industry.