Earlier this week, ifa learnt that Treasury is expected to release a consultation paper in the coming weeks to strengthen the accessibility of retirement products.
As such, this new paper, announced by Treasury, is expected to canvass problems with financial advice, among other things.
Commenting on this announcement, Eugene Ardino, chief executive officer at Lifespan Financial Planning, told ifa that everyone in the community is interested in seeing this consultation paper, which, he noted, should hopefully provide clarity around where the government is coming from with respect to retirement products and their accessibility.
“I feel advisers play an integral part in helping Australians plan their retirement when given the opportunity, which includes helping them decide where to spend their retirement savings and what products to buy,” said Mr Ardino.
“While, obtaining advice is obviously more effective for consumers if they access it long before retirement, having an adviser to navigate trying to decide which retirement products best suit an individual’s unique circumstances, will also play a large part in the effectiveness of any new framework that is built.
“Therefore, it is important, in my view, that personal advice is made available to consumers who seek to purchase any new retirement products so they can assess the appropriateness of them.”
Mr Ardino stressed, however, that “it is imperative that this advice be accessed from an adviser” and one that is “not related to the product provider”. This, he said, is particularly important for new and untested products.
“As such, I feel that this creates an even larger need for personal advice from a fully qualified adviser to become more accessible for all Australians.”
According to the comments section on ifa, advisers are not pleased with the government’s latest announcement and many feel this new consultation paper is just another form of meddling into their affairs.
“More rubbish from Chalmers to sanction the total control and domination of advice by the industry fund sector,” said one reader.
Another added: “Many clients I have known over 20 years don’t spend their balance outright as their goal is to receive an income to sustain a comfortable lifestyle check and 2- to maintain their balance as much as possible which is a priority for 99 per cent of retirees. If this is not happening, they are NOT happy. Ignorant politicians should consult the industry before making wild assertions.”
If the Government wants control of how much people have in retirement, this is what they should do:
1. Everyone pays 11% super guarantee to the future fund. It can invest in whatever the government thinks is great at the time.
2. When people reach preservation age, the Government can provide a guaranteed income of $50k per person for the rest of their life, regardless of how much they have contributed to ‘super’.
Of course they don’t want this, as it is too risky. What they really want is the above to occur but at no risk to the Government.
Or perhaps Industry Super wants the control associated with the FUM – a huge pot of money and power as the largest shareholder in about everything? Perhaps they want to keep the FUM – not have the risk of members making lump sum withdrawals (perhaps COVID) and is seen as a political threat to the FUM?
If the government wants to control this, how about everyone gets paid no less than the lowest paid minister. Given they do nothing this should be fair to expect the minimum wage to reflect this. Then they can take control of all.
Oh come on Advisers wake the hell up.
It’s ALWAYS ADVISERS fault, no matter what happens, Govt will blame Advisers.