We’re worth more: Super fund planners

20 April 2016

Almost one in five planners who work for superannuation funds believe they should be paid more than $300,000 a year, the Money Management Salary Survey reveals.

Data from the annual survey found just 10 per cent of planners across all employer types felt their salary should exceed $300,000, while 17 per cent of those employed by superannuation funds said they were worth at least that much.

Planners employed by dealer groups or advisory firms were the second most likely claim they should be paid more than $300,000 for performing their current role, with 12 per cent reporting they believed they were worth it, just three per cent more than those reporting their salary was already at that level.

Related News:

While super fund planners aspire to earning top dollar for their current role, the sector's best paid planners reported salaries of less than $170,000.

Retail bank planners were somewhat more modest in their beliefs of how much they should be paid, with 19 per cent claiming they were worth between $250,000 and $300,000, but none dreaming of pay packets above that level.

Planners working for accounting firms reported the lowest self-evaluation of their worth, with no respondents in this group believing they were worth more than $250,000, and just 14 per cent said they deserved a salary of up to $249,999.

The high salary expectations of super planners contrasts with the survey's finding that as a group they had the lowest education levels across the industry, as previously reported.

Recommended for you



To quote a very famous Australian film, 'Tell them they're dreaming...'
You'd need to bring in/maintain $500,000 - $600,000 revenue (ex GST) p.a. to justify remuneration at that level.

At least, and the other article says they want more staff as well, no profits to the employer, just all to me! I'm interested in the other 80% in the survey, i.e. what's an ordinary earnings estimate for the majority

This comedy show called the ISA just keeps coming out with the punch lines!

Hilarious - industry super planners, who statistically are the lowest educated, generally give cookie cutter advice as they have one mandate to attract and retain FUM in a vertically integrated self interest one product group, and compliments of their prior Labor Gov cronies do not have to comply with half the compliance regulations and bureaucratic paperwork we have to go through, also now state that they are worth more and should be in the top tier of paid planners in the industry???

Well, that certainly sounds like a good use of their members 'not for profit' funds (or is that to be paid out of the commissions from insurance companies that never make it to the member books?). The true joke is the whole phrase 'not for profit' has been misinterpreted; they actually mean the super fund is meant "not to profit" the members balances, but more so be a cash cow for employees and unions associated with those funds - all undisclosed of course.

Someone at Money Management clearly has an axe to grind here. As Walker above stated, you would need a huge revenue stream to justify a salary of that magnitude, but equally writing this story clearly has the purpose of stirring the nest. Only our clients suffer when we continue to have this ridiculous debate in our industry of banks v non for profits, the fact is the industry has moved on, we now have mutuals, profit for member, and other 'non bank owned' Superannuation and financial planning offerings (most of whom are not represented by ISA) this argument only serves to get the IFA segment angry. If you do a bit of digging you will see the world is a lot bigger than these backyard bullies want us to believe.

Would be a great gig if you can get paid that amount. Good hourly rate

Add new comment