Cbus is the latest superannuation fund to bring an advice offering to the market, with the fund announcing on Friday it will charge $990 to Cbus members and their spouse or partner for access to “strategic financial advice” via the fund’s “internal financial experts”, even if the partner is not a fund member.
The service called Advice Essentials Plus is designed to meet the common yet critical needs of couples preparing for retirement by offering simple advice that, while not complex, is essential to ensuring a dignified retirement, Cbus said.
The fund’s deputy CEO and chief member officer, Marianne Walker explained that many Cbus members retire as a couple and will rely on the Age Pension to supplement their income. However, until now, the fund’s advice services were restricted to individual members only.
“Following a survey of our members it became clear that they wanted Cbus to provide this service because they trust their fund and the fees associated with utilising external financial planners were cost prohibitive,” said Walker.
“Most of our members retire as a couple and will rely on some degree of Age Pension to fund their retirement. Centrelink treat couples as a family unit but up until now we’ve only been able to give advice to the Cbus member.
“We’re really pleased to have developed this offering to address that member need to expand basic advice to the household. It is a more realistic addressing of post-work life, of that intersection with Centrelink, and that a couple plans together for retirement”.
According to Walker, Cbus members were deterred by the high costs of external financial advice, prompting the fund to create an in-house solution that bridges the gap between its basic Advice Essentials and comprehensive advice offerings.
“Our members often required a bit more than Advice Essentials could offer but couldn’t or wouldn’t consider the comprehensive advice from external providers, usually due to the cost. That’s why we have worked to develop an affordable option that meets our member’s needs,” she said.
Initially, face-to-face consultations will be available at Cbus’ Melbourne office, with online meetings for those outside the city. By 2025, Cbus plans to expand in-person consultations nationwide, aiming to bring down costs further and even take advisers into regional areas.
Earlier this month, Otivo and CFS officially launched their $88 digital advice tool for unadvised FirstChoice members, while acknowledging that “digital advice is not for everyone”.
At the time, CFS Superannuation CEO Kelly Power noted that the company’s research has found almost two-thirds of Australians under 40 are open to a digital advice solution.
“We know that Australians who receive advice are far more confident and significantly more positive about their financial position than those who are unable to access advice,” Power said.
“New technology and digital tools will have a role to play but we recognise that digital advice is not for everyone. That’s why our focus is on making sure that advice is more accessible to all of our members, delivered in the right way at the right time.”
$990 is a bit steep for half baked advice (or more correctly, fund retention propaganda)
“Strategic advice” is problematic….financial planners got caned for doing that. Such advice is a cop out way to circumvent compliance requirements.
Maybe they should be concentrating more on getting a better more consistent performance for their members Super funds instead of making the “Poor & Underperforming Performing Super Funds List” with their Cbus Growth Fund earning an average 3 -Year annual investment return of only 4.96%
A very sad day.
The result of a grossly incompetent and aligned government pushing forward with an agenda to help their “big super buddies” which is so obvious it’s shameful.
So much collateral damaged to get to this stage and this is proof there is more to come.
The next Royal Commission playing out before our eyes – I wonder if there will be any “financial advisers” left for them to blame at that point.
The silence from the Faaa is deafening.
Clever move by CBus. This helps them ensure the client’s FUM is retained in CBus at retirement even when a better option for the client might be switching to another fund, or withdrawing to pay off personal debt, or purchasing a lifetime annuity. But it also allows them to capture additional FUM, by recommending the client’s partner switch into CBus. And CBus gets paid $990 a pop for this FUM generating scam!
Backpackers vertically owned sales Advice, no BID, no FARSEA code of Ethics or Education, significantly subsidised by the 95% of members that don’t get the Sales Advice but ALL Members pay HIDDEN COMMISSIONS.
Only allowed in Industry Super Regulatory Capture Corrupted land.
Yep Compare the Pair
Time for Real Advisors to Compare the Pair of what these sales stunts dressed up as Advice are.
Where’s Kenneth Hayne?
In light of ongoing discussions about the financial services industry, I am suggesting a more precise approach in labeling the guidance provided by superannuation funds. Instead of broadly categorizing such support as “financial advice,” I advocate for the term “superannuation and retirement advice” to more accurately reflect the specific nature of the support these funds offer their members.
This proposed shift emphasizes the primary focus of superannuation funds—helping Australians manage their retirement savings—rather than the full spectrum of financial advice, which often extends beyond retirement planning. This refined language could help set clearer expectations and ensure super fund members receive advice specifically tailored to their retirement needs.
The conversation underscores the importance of transparency in financial guidance, particularly in a time when many Australians are preparing for longer retirements and seeking tailored advice for their future.
If it is support – call it support. If people need Advice – they can see a Financial Adviser – simple.
Call it what it is, sales.
It’s clear that the industry “not for profit” super funds are aggressively moving into the advice space. After years of waging lawfare against the independent, for-profit advice sector—successfully pushing for the banning of commissions and contributing to the shrinking of the traditional advice profession—they’re now re-entering the field, supported by Levy’s QAR, “collective charging,” and the creation of a “new class of adviser.”
The fragmented state of the independent advice profession is alarming. As Mosca’s Law reminds us, “the organized 100 will always defeat the disorganized 1,000.” Without cohesion and a unified strategy, independent advisers risk being overwhelmed by the concentrated power and resources of the industry funds. This shift isn’t just about filling a service gap; it’s about redefining the market dynamics and potentially monopolizing financial advice under the guise of accessibility and affordability. The profession needs to wake up to these changes before it’s too late.
“Internal Financial Experts”
= Uneducated, Unqualified Backpacker’s
Will it meet best interests, will it be subject to fasea code of ethics? QoAR has NOT passed, how is this rubbish allowed? Expert in what? Selling their own product no matter what wile paid a fat salary with no compliance risk out of all members pockets??
Disgrace and undermines actual financial advisers, how can the Government let this gross under-educated and conflicted bias vertical integration occur? Only the unique stupidity Australian Regulators and Industry Funds can not only slime away with but promote? Disgusting
This statement gives it away :
“strategic financial advice” via the fund’s “internal financial experts”, even if the partner is not a fund member.
I bet the partner will be given this “strategic advice” to become a member as part of the $990 fee…
Shadow shoppers @ the ready!
Shadow shoppers are only important if the government or regulators act on the discovered adverse behavior. Have a read of ASICs last Shadow Shopping report ASIC REP 639 Over 50% did NOT MEET BEST INTERESTS Over 30% Provided an ADVERSE OUTCOME. What was there result of there alarming breaches? NOTHING
Good old Union funds just can’t help themselves bashing INDEPENDENT advisers every chance they get, the chance. It’s always about the cost; as the old saying goes, “you get what you pay for.” In this case, it’s all about keeping the money in Union’s hands, nothing more.
So will they be recommending non cbus funds? 1 guess.
Snoughts in trough!
Keep FUM is the name of the game
Intriguing that CBUS have chosen the higher cost route of scaled advice for $900plus or user when it’s accesible for less than $200 per year via the digital market under the same level of consumer protection with any AFSL. Surely embracing accessible affordable advice through technology is the mantra.
how are members best interest served when they are offering advice well below market rates fees taken from other members paying for this
Jones is their boy.
Are these “internal financial experts” going to be fully qualified financial advisers? Are they going to be able to provide wholistic advice covering strategies to maximise Centrelink including the use of alternate retirement income streams to ensure longevity of funds i.e. annuities (which last I checked CBUS don’t offer)? Will the advice extend to strategies around minimising potential future superannuation estate taxes? How can a superannuation trustee believe (or prove to ASIC) they are looking after their members best interests without giving comprehensive advice around retirement planning? To fully help a retiree out you can’t play in this grey area in the middle between general advice and comprehensive advice, thinking you only need to help out with one part of a couple’s circumstances. This is a very slippery slope and ASIC should be putting a stop to it now!
So a CBUS member comes to see the “Adviser” and the partner is with Australian Super, Netwealth, HUB24, Rest etc.. how are they supposed to “compare the pair” and give non-biased advice?! Do they have to provide a replacement of advice SOA, what about Insurances, best interest duty and all for $990- where does it end!
So CBUS will tell me if there is a better fund than the one I am in??
Guess they have concluded that recommendations under QAR are unlikely to pass prior to general election, and as high probability of change of government post election, why bother with that pesky think called ‘law’ or ‘legislation’ before offering financial services without a licence. I’m sure members (and non members alike) will receive excellent advice [sic] from their team of ‘qualified adviser’ [sic].
As a ‘licensed advised’, it might be a difficult task trying to predict future market movements, but predicting where this ends up is the easiest financial forecast anyone with an IQ over 10 could make. I’d say likelihood of Royal Commission 2.0 within 5 – 7 years = 100%.
how is this not conflict of interest here . how for 990 is this making money and putting members interest first where is apra
Nothing like independent advice
Vertical integration??
So is this ‘intrafund advice’ provided by a swedish backpacker or ‘personal advice’ provided by a fully qualified Financial Adviser? I’m not sure how any SOA can be generated for $990, particularly if it’s taking into account a partner’s circumstances who is not a CBUS member. I assume after they receive advice the partner will then become a CBUS member.
Are the advisers allowed to offer non Cbus products?