Advice by super funds 'generally appropriate'
The corporate watchdog has found that financial advice provided by superannuation funds has overall been “generally appropriate”, with quality of advice being similar across retail and industry funds.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission’s (ASIC’s) ‘Report 639 Financial advice by superannuation funds’ looked at 25 super funds and how they helped members obtain financial advice.
ASIC Commissioner, Danielle Press, said: “We recognise that inappropriate superannuation advice can have a significant detrimental impact on members’ future financial security. Where we did see some risk of detriment, we will be following up with the advice provider and requiring that they review and remediate the affected member.
“More broadly, proper oversight of advice fee deductions from superannuation accounts for all advice, not just advice provided by superannuation trustees, is an area of ongoing focus for ASIC working with APRA.”
Press noted that the quality of advice was found to be similar across retail and industry funds.
“Due to the different sample sizes we used in our work however, it is not possible to properly compare the overall quality of advice based on all four fund types, and our findings are presented on an aggregate basis,” she said.
“We will continue to monitor developments in advice services offered by funds through our regular engagement with trustees and take action as required.”
Recommended for you
ASIC has issued infringement notices to two AFSLs over financial advisers providing personal advice while they were unregistered.
Australian retirees could increase their projected annual incomes by as much as 51 per cent through comprehensive financial advice, according to a Vanguard study, but cost continues to be an issue.
AMP has announced a senior appointment to its North leadership team, reinforcing the firm’s commitment to the advice industry.
Despite the financial adviser exam being rooted in ethics, two professional year advisers believe the lack of support and transparency from the regulator around the exam is unethical.
