Key role for planners in retirement strategies

Australians still crave professional assistance to reach their retirement goals, according to the latest research from Investment Trends.

The latest Investment Trends Retirement Income Report has revealed that while Australians are generally feeling better about their preparedness for retirement, it still remains a concern for them creating scope for superannuation funds and financial planners to lay a key role.

“Many Australians are concerned they will not be able to reach their retirement goals, and only one in three believe they can do so without the help of professional assistance,” Investment Trends senior analyst, King Loong Choi said.

Related News:

“This highlights the important role that advice providers play in helping Australians along their retirement journey, and in helping them achieve their retirement goals.”

The research confirmed that super funds and financial planners were key players in helping Australians reach their retirement goals and that when seeking help with their retirement goals, Australians were most inclined to turn to a financial planner (33 per cent) or their super fund (25 per cent) for assistance.

“Opportunities abound for both financial planners and super funds given the level of interest shown by Australians for further assistance,” Choi said. “Right now, individuals with a super balance less than $100,000 are just as likely to seek help in achieving their retirement goals from planners as they are to seek help from their super fund.”

However, he said the story was different among those with a super balance greater than $100,000 where financial planners were significantly more preferred.

Recommended for you



Well there won't be many left once ASIC has finished "thinning the herd".

Let's hope customised robo advice gets invented,

Otherwise many Australians are going to be a great deal poorer and Centrelink costs will be a great deal higher.

Very true Wild cat, hard to not feel like they have a set vendetta against all planners, and likely an agreed agenda made with Labor and the ISA back when the Rudd/Gillard/Shorten/Bowen fiasco government appointed their lil darlings, Kell & Medcraft.

I am not keen on the conspiracy theory, rather it is because they see poor advice and expensive advice all the time because the laws are so complicated that rather than being able to offer 500 clients cheap advice, the average adviser is left with 200 clients and more costs so the advice is expense and some advisers take shortcuts as a result of this. Perhaps the solution maybe to develop a better system. eg General advice still costs, so General advice for less than 0.1%of investment. Basic advice without an SOA, and limited liability (like an accountant limited liability scheme) for a max of 0.3%of investment and Personal advice as currently for more than this amount. Robo advice that charges over 0.3% would also need a full SOA and full PI insurance, because the client is paying for full advice. What do others think???

I think that is ludicrous to try to set specific fees like that. Plus there seems to be evidence if not of open collusion between the groups anonymous mentioned, then certainly of a common goal or either making less planners, or restricting it so badly that it isn't cost effective for clients or us anymore, either way the ISA who are seemingly immune to ASIC scrutiny win, as does Labor.

I think stipulating prices in an open market is not what I would be advocating.

There is service and there is service, often the funds under advice is only a small part of the service proposition. Do you instruct the mortgage broker on debt structuring, is it platform or SMSF, do you escort more complex clients to the lawyer for the estate plan, do you liaise with the accountant for business and trust tax planning?

Contracts for service should be at the discretion between the service provider and the client. The client can determine the value provided for the cost.

I do subscribe to the compare the pair conspiracy theory. Whether it's as broad as Anonymous suggests or just insidious I don't know.

I just want to compare equal things, not compare an apple with a watermelon and expect a fair comparison.

This coupled with the ridiculous compliance burden is jeorpardising the viability of business and prices therefore must go up for advice. Then running all the experienced and "uneducated" out of the industry to leave advice to young guns with education but no experience and no mentors is not a good result. It's like Stalin shooting all his generals and Colonels before the war and expecting the Red Army to keep the Nazi's out because the soldiers had good boot camp training!

This is supposed to be about things being better for the client. I can see the opposite being the case.

Add new comment