Industry superannuation funds have backed the deduction of one-off advice fees from superannuation balances at the same time as arguing for an extension of the ability to provide advice around household retirement adequacy and pension eligibility.
The Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees (AIST) submission to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission’s (ASIC’s) advice affordability review has also urged the implementation of a private ruling service on the status of new advice offers.
The AIST submission aligns closely with that provided to ASIC by Industry Super Australia and argues for the removal of obstacles to the use of alternatives to comprehensive personal advice, including factual information, general advice and intra-fund advice.
The submission said that recent court decisions had further muddied the waters with respect to general versus personal advice and that ASIC needs to update its guidance about the boundaries between the provision of factual information and general advice.
On the question of general advice, the AIST submission has urged the implementation of a private ruling service on the status of new advice offers to enable advisers to consult and seek certainty during the design of new advice offers.
The AIST submission also urges an extension of intra-fund advice to pre-retirement advice with the new arrangement capable of being paid for via existing intra-fund advice models.
Comments
Yep that seems like a given result from ASIC and Industry super.
More Vertically Integrated, Product Owned Advisers providing Intra Fund Advice that doesn't meet BID or FARSEA to SELL Industry Super only.
And all paid for via Hidden Commissions charged to ALL members when most members don't get Advice.
No need for full fact finds, no need for product comparisons, no need for any real AFSL compliance.
At the same time let's make it even harder and more BS REGS for REAL Advisers.
Guarantee this will happen !!!!!!!!!
Agreed. ASIC is hell bent on making these crooked union funds get a free pass to do whatever they like while stamping out all competition. The parliamentary enquiry unfortunately is only scratching the surface and exposing some of the collusion and corruption between ASIC, ISA and IFM however they somehow still manage to get away with non-disclosure whenever they wish; ISA & IFM with 'commercial sensitivity' BS and ASIC through pure belligerence and no regard for the authority of those questioning or for the truth.
The rot set in when Labor got free reign to make key ASIC appointees back amidst the GFC, and with Howard/Costello gone, the Libs back then had no back bone to argue. About time Frydenburg manned up and ScoMo joined in to gut out the rotten fish heads and appoint some decent regulators who as a very minimum need to be impartial and not have left leaning political agendas.
ASIC is corrupt and let their fellow scum in ISA land get away with anything.
Yep. Read about the intra-fund racket here... link https://bit.ly/35RthFX
@ Steve, so mate, what's your view about bulk-billing for Medicare (e.g. I shouldn't pay any levy if I don't got to the doctor?) and your submission spends a LOT of time complaining about intra-fund advice and very LITTLE on practical steps that our industry can take to make advice more accessible and affordable. Unless, you can give some pretty decent ideas on what we can do now and in the future apart from "cut red tape", then please stop wasting everyone's time banging on about this intra-fund advice!! The industry funds and ASIC know how stupid we are when we can't even help ourselves by answering the ACTUAL question that was asked about improving our profession.
Steve is correct you cannot Ban commissions for advisers then turn around and keep intra fund fees...
There was nothing wrong with commissions for advisers but the industry funds want to both ways...
@WOW, commissions = irrelevant issue - complaining about this does not address the problem that is trying to be solved and NOTHING to do with industry funds!! Being so easily distracted like this is why no-one in government has listened before to anyone in our profession.
Let's start again.... what can be done to reduce the cost and accessibility for advice????
Hmm... sounds like someone who is picking up $40,000 pa in bonuses & doesn't want to lose them
@steve, I do not get not even 1 cent of bonus from industry funds and a ridiculous assumption you made without any evidence or proof!! This is what I would expect from a Trump supporter not an educated financial planner. BTW, it really is pathetic when we have an opportunity to drive meaningful change to improve our profession and all you can do is resort to attacking others and complaining about something that is not actually relevant. PLEASE COME UP SOME ACTUAL IDEAS and then maybe the government will start taking the FP profession seriously and until that point we simply look like a bunch of loser whingers...
"a ridiculous assumption you made without any evidence or proof!!" FFS what a Robot. Press a button you get this and then in the same breath you get you're "a Trump supporter" THEN CAPS LOCK YELLING!!!!!!, then self righteous denegration and abuse. How Old do you reckon forexops is? 25-30? yep. University Educated? - yep. Living Inner City? - yep. On a Salary? yep. There's some "ridiculous assumptions". But how close am I? "Oh! Oh! You're not close at all! You're a Trump support too! I bet you hate Transgender people too! And you kill puppies! And and and and ...............GLOBAL WARMING!!!! "
You are supposed to tick "I am not a robot." Failure to do so is fraudulent and I'm going to dob you in to Choice.
@FEm, rambling much?? But hey, thanks for proving my point about how all we do is attack each other and NOTHING ELSE (yes frustrated yelling!) . BTW, what are your ideas again to make financial advice more accessible and affordable???? …. [crickets]
You’ve been given the answer by another and you choose to ignore it.
When the discussion shifted to a former US President, you can tell this person has totally lost the plot. Who also is very short on solutions, by the way.
@steve, so somehow I’ve “totally lost the plot” but you making accusations about mythical bonuses is totally fine?? Why not show some maturity and retract your unfounded comments... and I did NOT call anyone a Trump supporter (without any evidence), read my comment again, I said I expected MORE from an educated financial planner. Our profession needs objectivity and open-mindedness without falling for the temptation to attack each other when we do not agree on issues. Please stop with the “you must be paid bonuses” and “totally lost the plot” comments because they are neither edifying nor a positive reflection on how professionals should communicate about important issues.
Ho hum.
This is so robotic I am beginning to wonder whether we have one of Xi's 50c robots here seeding chaos.
Very impressive submission Steve. Well done.
A fine piece of work. Thanks for taking the time to stand up for your fellow financial planners Steve and preparing this very insightful and important submission. My financial and mental situation is fragile, and I am so frightened of ASIC (and my licensee for that matter), I put forward an anonymous submission, which is frankly embarrassing. I have decades of experience, a successful business, I have never had a bad audit, never had a client compliant, I have passed the FASEA exam and have an approved degree, yet I am so rattled by ASIC's pattern of behaviour, I am too afraid about speak out about their inhumane persecution of our industry. So on that note, thanks for putting your balls on the line for the benefit of your clients, your fellow advisers and consumers in general. Respect.
Great work and courageous.
Well this is really what the consultation is all about. Another free-kick for the hopelessly conflicted industry fund sales people masquerading as financial advisers, while real financial advisers suffer from diminishing income, impossible levels of red-tape and stress.
We are witnessing regulatory capture at its finest folks. I still shake my head over ASIC using the brand name 'Industry Fund' in their sample SOA. This shows the culture of favouritism and bias towards industry funds so deeply embedded into their psyche, they don't even recognise such a blindingly obvious error of judgement.
Then if this is allowed and ASIC doesn't provide the same documentary and legislative relief for advisers, then we will have confirmed, many will say yet again, of their collusion with ISA and big super. They don't want advisers.
A private ruling seems the way to go...
I wonder if the unaligned advice sector can also get a private ruling, as well as risk advisers ,stockbrokers and mortgage brokers. Seems the most appropriate thing, because then nobody will be subject to the draconian regulations. :P
Imagine the dollars that can be saved if ASIC don't have anybody to witch-hunt any more. :P
"Private ruling"? Just another carve-out for the ethically challenged. :P
AIST submission:
" ...consideration of a spouse’s super) should be allowable within an intra-fund
advice topic on retirement and paid for via existing intra-fund advice models."
I wonder what the product advice on the spouse super will be?
It's on the Ministers desk now.
Hahaha! Of course they want to encourage conflicted advice for themselves and put the rest of us to the sword.
Many thanks for all of the positive support. I will continue the fight for a consistent regulatory environment, for as long as it takes. If unfair Govt regulations & carve out s unfairly disadvantage retail advisers, to the point of having to decline servicing low income families, being forced to close your business/lay off staff, or at worst contemplate suicide - then none of this can be in your clients best interest. Proverbs 17:15; Micah 6:8 Best rgds Steve Blizard
Cracker of report mate. Your submission is spot on.
Add new comment