In questions on notice provided to the parliamentary joint committee on corporations and financial services, ASIC said the fine handed down to the wealth management institution in 2015 had involved a Google ad where the headline included the words ‘Industry Super Australia’.
“ASIC was concerned that BT misled consumers into believing that BT had an affiliation with Industry Super Australia (ISA), an organisation which manages collective projects on behalf of 15 industry super funds,” the regulator said.
“BT has never had an affiliation with ISA.”
The regulator continued that the ad created “a misleading perception” that BT was an industry super fund.
The comments come following previous ifa reporting that House economics committee chair Tim Wilson had uncovered evidence of industry funds using similar Google advertising.
Documentation provided by Mr Wilson revealed both Hesta and Australian Super had previously purchased Google AdWords based on the search term “retail super transfer”.
Mr Wilson questioned ASIC commissioner Danielle Press around the funds’ conduct at a recent House economics committee hearing, saying the funds in question had “refused to provide evidence” of AdWords they had purchased when questions on notice were requested by the committee.
In its response to a similar line of questioning from PJC member and Liberal MP Jason Falinski, ASIC said Mr Falinski’s question around the AdWords purchased by industry funds had been “framed in general terms, making it difficult to make an assessment of any particular conduct the member may be referring to”.
“If there is evidence of misleading or other conduct contrary to law in relation to advertisements on Google, ASIC will consider appropriate regulatory action,” the regulator said.
“ASIC applies the same legal standard to all superannuation trustees. In relation to advertising, our focus is generally whether or not there is misleading conduct.
“If the member has concerns about specific examples of potentially misleading use of Google Ads by superannuation funds, these can be referred to ASIC for further investigation.”
[quote=Barry ]Right on Anon – you call out Industry funds for what they really are. Funds which have a long history of out performance of those corporate super funds and retail funds [b]you probably recommend[/b][b][/b], lower fees than those retail product [b]you probably recommend[/b][b][/b], insurance tailored to the industry rather than to pay a [b]fat commission[/b][b][/b], Yeah you go anon. Get stuck in. [/quote][quote=Barry ]Right on Anon – you call out Industry funds for what they really are. Funds which have a long history of out performance of those corporate super funds and retail funds [b]you probably recommend[/b][b][/b], lower fees than those retail product [b]you probably recommend[/b][b][/b], insurance tailored to the industry rather than to pay a [b]fat commission[/b][b][/b], Yeah you go anon. Get stuck in. [/quote]So Barry, the default insurance is OK, right. So default cover that drops drastically at age 37, and TPD definitions requiring rehabilitation attempts before payout are OK then. And so called fixed rate, fully underwritten insurance thats dearer than retail, pays no commission is OK. Except commission is paid and not disclosed to the Trustee. YEAH RIGHT !
The liberal party have the power to direct ASIC as they have with commissions yet they dont.
The bizarre thing is “Industry” funds aren’t actually industry funds. They are union funds. Some of the corporate super funds run by BT, Mercer, AMP and others are much more accurately described as industry funds.
ASIC and ACCC should be fining ISA for their deceptive use if the term “Industry Funds”. This label is an attempt to obscure their true source of control and financial beneficiaries, which is unions.
Right on Anon – you call out Industry funds for what they really are. Funds which have a long history of out performance of those corporate super funds and retail funds [b]you probably recommend[/b][b][/b], lower fees than those retail product [b]you probably recommend[/b][b][/b], insurance tailored to the industry rather than to pay a [b]fat commission[/b][b][/b], Yeah you go anon. Get stuck in.
So your defence of union funds’ misleading and deceptive advertising is to regurgitate union funds’ misleading and deceptive advertising?
Licensed financial advisers are legally obliged to comply with a Best Interest Duty when recommending any product. This involves researching and documenting the facts relating to fees and performance and features. We cannot recommend a product unless it is demonstrably in the client’s best interest. We cannot rely on deceptive advertising, the way union fund employees and their PR flunkies do.
Actually industry funds have equal representation from both unions and employers at a board level and Industry funds return profits to members. Retail funds have no member or employer representation at a board level and operate to generate profit for private shareholders.
How many ex-Labor Premiers and are employed by Industry Funds and/or IFM. What special expertise do they have?
The so called “employer representatives” on union funds are puppets whose board fees and strike free workplace are dependent on toeing the union line.
Union fund members come from a huge cross section of employers now. 99.9% of members would not have a representative from their employer on the board.
Profits (if any) are only distributed after expenses. Payments to unions, union officials, and union aligned businesses are made as expenses.
Actual AJ, looks to be a bit of a conflict having employers on the board with the Unions overseeing the retirement savings of the workers. I can just imagine when a Company faced with possible industrial action from the Union would be very forthcoming in allowing excessive pay rises from the retirement savings of the workers to the Union Super Board members – perhaps it happens? Point is, I’m not convinced this is a good thing.
Secondly, “Industry Funds return profits to members”. The real game in this is FUM and that is creamed off into another entity as I see it so no return of any profit. Any why should there be a profit, when a profit only arises after expenses, and employee and Board Salaries come out as an expense item before any “profit”. They just pay themselves what they want?
Members have zero say – just as the members are all charged fees for services most never actually use – or “fee for no service” in today’s media.
Suggest you do some research before you believe the hype.
I thought by sending all the small business advisors to the wall ASIC and the Liberal party had fixed everything???
Industry Funds & ASIC cosy little corrupt buddies, never a problem to be seen.
Typical public service response
“ASIC applies the [b][size=24px]same[/b][/size] legal standard to [b][size=24px]all[/b][/size] superannuation trustees. ” Yes, of course they do.
ASIC isn’t even hiding the fact that they protect the union funds now. The union funds know they are untouchable and simply tell ASIC to go away when they are asked for anything. One set if rules for their buddies, one very different set of rules for everyone else.
General terms these guys are corrupt, this is so rotten
ASIC is corrupt.