Why would you be foolish enough to choose Hodge as your QC? Easy to twist words...
Maybe the AMP fund offers many more options than a bank account which all come at a cost? Just as Hodge does with his large hourly rate.

This is a contractual commitment between the Adviser and the Trustee of the Fund to pay at a certain rate and should not be white anted by Government. Besides any renegotiation would in my case raise the rates for the Consumer !

Does this not bring into question the relevance and competance of both Kell and ASIC?

How can this be allowed to happen when advisers have bought books of business based on that ongoing servicing fee??? This will destroy people’s livelihoods for no other reason than political bias.

Yep right on ASIC, get rid of grandfathered commissions, let the banks and insurance companies pocket the advisers commissions as extra margin, then set up the financial advisers to have to charge the clients more to try to get paid for the advice they provide.
Admittedly there are advisers they don’t provide much advice for the comms received and that was stupid with FOFA.
But for everyone’s sake, ASIC & ODwyer can’t be allowed to let the banks and institutions pockets these Adviser comms as extra margins.
ODwyer & ASIC you need to be put on notice of your bank loving approach and anti financial adviser constant approach.

General advice is nothing more then perhaps high quality customer service, in that you get to speak one on one with a SALES person who may have higher then the average knowledge of other staff members on the features and benefits of the particular product that the organisation is SELLING.Call it for what it is, SALES and get rid of the confusion for the public. The extra joke is when industry funds charge for this and then in some cases, also allow an on going fee to be charged.

Let's just make everything free - all financial services should be free. Let's raise taxes to a flat 50% so the government can provide for all. :roll:

Derp, this should have have happened when FOFA came in.

ASIC doesn’t under how the industry works. They are have no idea what they are doing.

They make the keystone cops look like they have a sound investigative process.

Well ASIC, do you also admit that "ASIC should have given more thought to the consequences of"... LIF and the engineered 413 report?
OR, "given more thought to ....." ethical Advisers who tried in vain to alert you to : 1) Storm, 2) CBA Financial Planning Scandal, 3) Great Southern, 4) ........ We could keep going on forever. PATHETIC AND BIASED!

Agree with Kell, better late then never. We will never be recognised as a profession if this continues.

Next ban commissions on insurnance.

Next deal with Property as it falls outside Corp's law and subject to abuse.

All we need now is a share market correction and property correction (under way) to bring the bacon home.

LOL... love this RC

Welcome to what we all knew years ago, Kell. Asleep at the wheel as usual.

My impression of Kell is he himself is morally bankrupt and conflicted. How can he persecute FPs for previously contracted income with a supplier, not the clients, and yet let all the dodgy dealings with ISA go on without investigation?

We are an IFA with negligible grandfathered comm btw so minimal self interest in writing this, but sick of this snivelling hypocrite.

Stating that the entire provision of grandfathering is not at all in the consumers interests is a wreckless statement by an organisation that has lost its way. Once again the advisers will suffer from poor structured products that should never have been approved by ASIC in the first place.

of course... wasn't this the whole purpose of the RC? Now ASIC should add that if grandfathered commissions be removed that the product providers actually rebate the commission back into their accounts (and not be retained by the institution). Also.. perhaps ASIC in their wisdom should look at how advice costs can be simplified and reduced so that the process to transition clients can happen faster - the advice costs and red tape need to be considered.
Finally.. let's not let the consumer off the hook... I thought that they could actually take the lead, engage with a financial planner (or direct with a super fund/product provider) and ask for a non commission based product solution. The thing about consumerism is that it is everyone else's fault and taking responsibility for their own actions is their last thought.. I think the banks are actually laughing in their boardroom!! Goodluck to those retiring planners.. a few shock waves I'd imagine

And anyone is surprised? I recall predicting the end of the dinosaurs a few months ago with the asteroid in the shape of the royal commission bearing down. Let’s just say I copped a fair old spray. Adios lifers, your extinction event will probably be September 22 ? Is that the day commissioner Hayne hands down his interim report ? Sorry. The old ways are over.

Why hasn't the advice community united as an industry to improve understanding of the value of advice and at same time take on industry funds ????

Don't make me pull out my client Uni super correspondence that stated their income payments would decrease due to this "poor set-up". They were in trouble.

"UNISUPER has acknowledged that its defined benefit superannuation fund is no longer prepared to pay all the benefits promised to members when they were forced to join this fund. Its latest chief executive, Kevin O'Sullivan, has indicated that a name change, including "target benefit" rather than "defined benefit", will be considered. For younger members with many years of employment ahead, and nearly 7000 non-commutable lifetime pensioners, a more suitable description could well be "uncertain benefits" scheme". (The Australian, Sept 28, 2013)

I've just checked the Hostplus PDS dated 1 July 18 and it makes for some very interesting reading. First things first - asset allocation. According to the PDS (page 5 if anyone is interested) - the Balanced Fund has 76% in growth assets and 24% in defensive assets. But hang on a minute - they have included Infrastructure as 5% and property as 9% under DEFENSIVE assets. WTF?!!! Since when has infrastructure OR property EVER been considered as a defensive asset? Now I have a business degree, a masters in finance and I'm a CFA charter holder (if you don't know what a Chartered Financial Analyst is - look it up. Pay particular attention to the extreme difficulty in obtaining this pre nom). In all my studies - infrastructure and property have always been considered GROWTH assets - the variability of returns from these assets is substantially higher than the variability from cash and fixed interest assets. So, Hostplus - your Balanced fund is definitely not true to label. I would go so far as to say that this is deliberate deceptive and misleading advertising. If you have a fund with 90% in Growth assets - this should be labelled as a HIGH GROWTH fund NOT Balanced. Second point - FEES. let's have a look at that PDS again (pages 5 and 6). According to Anonymous "Hostplus Index Balanced fund has been performing extremely well and is basically the cheapest super option available to the public". WRONG AGAIN!!! According to the PDS - if you have $50,000 invested in the Hostplus Balanced option your fees will be $803 pa. Obviously maths is not your strong point so I've worked it our for you - $803 divided by $50,000 equals 1.606% PA!!!!!!! That makes Hostplus one of the MOST EXPENSIVE super funds available to the public. So good luck with your Barefoot Investor - who by the way is NOT on the Financial Adviser Register.