The superannuation industry is embracing financial planning as an integral offering for members, but has strongly rejected a commission-based fee model.
A survey conducted by Money Management’s sister publication Super Review has revealed that while the superannuation industry now broadly accepts that financial planning must be an integral service offering, it remains sceptical about the actual quality of financial planners.
The IUS/Super Review Super Outlook survey, conducted through April and early May, confirmed that the superannuation industry remains strongly opposed to commission-based financial planning arrangements, with more than 92.5 per cent of respondents indicating their preference for salaried and fee-for-service models where planner remuneration was concerned.
In fact, the survey revealed that 72.1 per cent of respondents wanted a fee-for-service model, while 20.4 per cent favoured a salary model. Only 7.5 per cent indicated they favoured a commission-based model.
The survey also revealed a belief that the implementation of choice of superannuation funds had made financial planning an integral part of the superannuation industry, with 83.4 per cent of respondents citing choice as a primary driver for the acceptance of planning within the industry.
Interestingly, 89.8 per cent of respondents said financial planning should now be provided as a service to members.
However, when it comes to passing a judgement on the abilities of financial planners, the superannuation industry remains somewhat jaundiced in its view, with more than 30 per cent of respondents believing the knowledge levels of financial planners were only either ‘adequate’ or ‘poor’.
Asked how they viewed the knowledge of financial planners as it applies to superannuation, 13.1 per cent of respondents suggested it was ‘excellent’, and that planners seemed generally well informed, 53.8 per cent said it was ‘good’, and that planners seemed to know enough to deal with most enquiries, while 24.8 per cent said it was ‘adequate’, with planners seeming to get by.
By comparison, 8.3 per cent of respondents rated the knowledge of planners as being ‘poor’ because they did not possess enough knowledge to help people make informed decisions.
