According to polling conducted by CT Group on behalf of the Financial Services Council (FSC), 76 per cent of Australians support superannuation funds being able to provide consumers with basic advice and guidance about which retirement products to choose based on their personal circumstances and goals.
In contrast, just 4 per cent of respondents said they opposed super funds being able to provide this advice. The remaining respondents did not feel strongly either way.
The research also found that this support was consistent among all age groups and genders, though the highest level of support was among those approaching or in retirement. Among 55- to 64-year-olds, 79 per cent support retirement advice being provided by their superannuation fund, while 82 per cent of those aged 65 and above agreed.
The research also showed that almost three-quarters of the respondents want to choose or tailor their retirement rather than receive a default product.
The FSC noted that 77 per cent of Australians who are between 45 to 55 years old, a “politically sensitive cohort given they have saved through superannuation for their entire working lives and would be the first to be affected by the government’s proposed changes”, indicated a preference for control over their retirement savings.
“Consumers’ preference for control over their retirement savings is a cautionary warning to superannuation funds that are considering whether to impose ‘one-size-fits-all’ solutions onto members at retirement,” said FSC chief executive Blake Briggs.
“Retirement is complex, and every family is unique, making affordable and accessible personal financial advice that tailors retirement outcomes for each household the key to delivering high-quality retirement outcomes.”
Additionally, 70 per cent of respondents said they trust themselves over their superannuation fund to make decisions about which retirement products to use, while 76 per cent said they were likely to seek advice on retirement products.
Among this group, 62 per cent said they were likely to seek it from a financial adviser, followed by their super fund (46 per cent), and the government (14 per cent).
“National polling shows the Treasurer should be careful not to default superannuation consumers into government-designed retirement products as Australians overwhelmingly support making their own financial decisions at retirement, with the support of affordable financial advice,” Mr Briggs said.
“There is significant risk for the government if they were to try and convince Australians that politicians know best determining which retirement products they should use.”
It’s like people going to a Toyota Car yard and asking would you be happy for the car salesperson to give you advice on the differences between the Corolla EV versus the Corolla VX… and finding out 25% of people said no.
Yet the FSC will say 1 + 1 = 3. One thing to get ask in a survey if people want Advice on Product another to ask how they want conflict free genuine financial advice. I would have thought 100% of respondants would be happy to get advice on what PRODUCT might suit.
“ISA has always been and always will be a strong advocate that exemptions for conflicted
remuneration should not exist. In a system which has been severely undermined by poor
behaviour that has resulted in poor outcomes for consumers, there is no place to sustain a
misalignment of incentives that can and does lead to inappropriate advice being provided. ISA
encourages the government to end all carveouts in the conflicted remuneration regime as a
priority.”
(Industry Super Australia – 22nd March 2019 – to The Treasury, Financial Services Reform Implementation Taskforce)
“It is inexcusable that for an extended period millions of dollars will continue to be funnelled to
advisers instead of consumer accounts, where that money could be earning interest and help to
provide for their retirement”
(Industry Super Australia – 22nd March 2019 – to The Treasury, Financial Services Reform Implementation Taskforce)
Surveys are like royal commissions: the trick is drafting the questions or terms of reference in the case of a Royal commission.
Anyone can get the result they want just by changing the frame of the question.
A few motherboard type statements targeted to people who have probably never had any financial advice will get you the result you’re after. A hint that it might be free cements the case.
Shouldn’t complain: after all the FSC represents product manufacturers, insurers and fund managers. C’est la vie. They don’t represent me and they sure as hell don’t represent the punters.
Unfortuntaely FSC does represent you whether you like it or not, because FSC is part of JAWG, the so called coalition of advice associations presenting a united voice to government. Getting into bed with FSC as part of JAWG is just another in a long line of extremely bad mistakes by FAAA/FPA.
“Additionally, 70 per cent of respondents said they trust themselves over their superannuation fund to make decisions about which retirement products to use, while 76 per cent said they were likely to seek advice on retirement products.
Among this group, 62 per cent said they were likely to seek it from a financial adviser, followed by their super fund (46 per cent) and the government (14 per cent).”
SORRY, these numbers don’t make sense as it seems like they were able to choose multiple answers, hence why the numbers do not add up to 100%.
This data is useless IMO.
we must protect the 75% of the population from themselves. Don’t they realise, without the expert guidance of Harvard trained financial planners, they face the risk of the super funds making them broke with the used car sales tactics ripping them off at every turn??