The consumer group has issued a statement pointing to the alleged re-emergence of royal commission-like issues in the superannuation sector. Namely, responding to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission’s (ASIC) statement from Thursday morning, Super Consumers Australia said super funds and advisers need to urgently step up their efforts to protect Australians’ retirement savings.
The consumer group said ASIC’s report highlights the failure of “many super funds” to uphold their duty to protect people from being charged for inappropriate, costly advice from their super savings.
ifa has found that although ASIC’s report mentioned instances like “3 out of 7 trustees had cases of fees for no service”, such occurrences were relatively rare even among these three, accounting for only 1 per cent of the 1,526 cases, which suggests approximately 15 cases in total.
Despite this, however, the director of Super Consumers did not hold back, noting in the statement that “it’s appalling that some funds are not closely monitoring fees and deductions from their members’ super”.
“It is a super fund’s job to protect people’s retirement savings from rip-off fees and services, but ASIC found that three of the funds they looked at were failing to even do basic checks of advisor fee deductions. This comes despite regulator warnings to improve on this back in 2021,” Xavier O’Halloran said.
O’Halloran continued by emphasising the need for the government to take more decisive action to halt this behaviour, advocating for the introduction of a ban on unfair trading to effectively end the inappropriate promotion of advice.
“Unfortunately, some funds and advisers are forgetting the lessons of the Financial Services Royal Commission and the horror of ‘fees for no service’. Right now, some within the industry are calling for the removal of obligations on super funds to protect people from inappropriate advice fees. We’re calling on Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones to protect the savings of Australians from dodgy practices by retaining these protections,” said O’Halloran.
“It is good to see ASIC shining a light on poor practices. We expect ASIC to now follow up with strong enforcement action against trustees and advisers to deter future misconduct.”
The consumer group further suggested that advisers should welcome the reforms currently before Parliament, even adding that “those who are genuinely acting in their clients’ best interests have nothing to fear”.
“Unfortunately, people need to be extra cautious about cold calling and malicious click-bait ads on social media. If you’re approached by a cold caller about your super, just hang up, or if you see click-bait advertisements on social media, just scroll past,” O’Halloran added.
ifa also found that while the ASIC report seems to examine trustee practices regarding the review and approval of advice fees, as well as cold calling and super switching practices, the connection between these topics in the report’s findings is unclear. The analysis of the 10 trustees and the 1,526 advice cases reviewed lacks data on cold calling and super switching. Despite this, the report includes two case studies on cold calling and super switching on page 4.
This raises questions about how these case studies align with the theme of the report and what insights the data provides on cold calling and super switching.
So Xavier, you are satisfied that HostPlus pouring millions of dollars into AFL and AFLW sponsorship is a valid and acceptable means by which the Trustees are spending their fund’s monies instead of either reducing fees or upgrading member services in order to enhance the purpose of the fund, that being to benefit their member’s retirement savings?
Or is ok to spend it on the footy instead ?
Funny, I think most of the ads (online, on stadium fences and player guernseys) that I see are for Industry Super Funds!
IMO – Lots of Ads on TV etc as well it seems – probably keeps the Media at large on side as well? IMO Huge amounts of money being thrown around – for everyone it seems but Financial Planner – why you ask – because Financial Planners could and often do move/rollover FUM to another product – a position of power no other has – and make Financial Planner target number 1. Could be wrong?
All this tells me is that Super Consumers Australia doesn’t know the difference between a financial adviser and a super fund.
Alan Kirkland will be lobbying for Xavier to get into the ASIC bubble.
That way he can surround himself with even more like minded people.. aka. Adviser Haters.
Xavier O’Halloran !! hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah. What a joke.
Credit to IFA for pointing out the dishonest, biased attacks on financial planners. These press releases are designed to influence politicians and prevent them making changes which would benefit consumers. The comments from ASIC and these fake consumer groups is becoming embarrassing and delusional
Xavier has completed his KPIs before his salary review, Xavier and ASIC should stop and look at the fees industry super funds are paying to the unions, the Labor government won’t do it because they will lose funding.
15 cases?!?
This could be remediated in 2 days!!
Once the remediation of the 15 cases has been completed we could proceed with Mr O’Halloran’s redundancy.
THIS bias research still showed 90% of advice was appropriate under their clearly undefined and random reseach. WHEREAS ASIC Report 639 demonstrated Less than half of 233 superannuation advice files reviewed by ASIC demonstrated full compliance with best interest duty and related obligations, according to a report released by the regulator.
While only 49 per cent of files demonstrated full compliance in Report 639, 15 per cent of files not only failed to meet best interest duty but indicated the member was at risk of suffering detriment as a result of following the advice provided, the study found. WHAT DOES THIS BIAS CONSUMER GROUP MAKE OF THAT? If advisers are to “blame” for this, how awful must funds internal advice be??? 15% provided detiremental outcomes and a lot was “free”
The straw which breaks the back of advice being advocated by a government funded group supporting industry funds. Hope you’re proud and hope this utterly stupid government is booted
Why bother? Seriously, all advisers need to just stop paying the register leave the corrput regime and give unlicensed advice. Not worth trying to do the right thing. Backwards. The cold calling was probably not even from licensed advisers and the research doenst even mention if it is, but budles the unrelated issues together. Just quit and go unlicensed or change professions. So sick of funding ingorant incapable and uneducated Government on consumer groups through back door government grants. WHICH WE FUND. Disgusting
How about the consumer group doesnt suggest anything for financial advisers and stick to their conflicted pathetic lane – spruiking this bias agenda of not allowing fee deductions has been concocted by ASIC, ALP and Industry funds – EVIDENCED by narrow confidence bias let “research” with a narrow misreprentative sample, coupled by government funding of the said “professional body” and ALP in writing policy which is contradictory to everything they hasd said tabled or the review this policy is supposed to be based on. Only in Australia could the biad integrated super funds kill a profession. No other developed country in the world has an a dvice profession more taxed, bullied, overly litigated and with higher barriers of entry. But it still continues. So discgraceful and frankly, embarassing. THE ADVICE PROFESSIONAL BODIES ALL OF THEM, NEED TO DO SOMETHING. Coalition NEED TO MAKE GUARANTEES so we can boot these utter joke of an Advice killing (literally and figuratively) Mafia
THE RESEARCH IS BIAS AND THESE STATEMENTS UTTERLY UNFOUNDED. Both need to be shut down. This is like the ATO aliging with choice and banks to comment on what Tax Law should be instead of regulating it. Then being funded by the government at formation so they can push their bias and predetermined agenda. Look through this to the election and punt the ALP and stop funding this rink dink so called consumer organisation which in fact has 0 experience in financial advice or history of protecting Australians. Pathetic
What about the fact super funds are vertically integrated entirely and this is what caused the same issues in the RC. NOT ADVISERS PRODUCTPROVIDERS AND BANKS. What a lot of utter rot. I hope the AIOFP and FAAA Public clarify the irrelevance of these comments.
THIS IS BS – a group formed and funded by the labor party and industry funds ONLY, is in NO position to comment on Financial Advice regulations. It is in complete opposition to the INFORMED 2 YEARS + of professional consultation. What a pathetic joke and sad state this country is in.
Group is actually funded by choice and the federal budget, first initiated by the libs.
Dear Super Consumers & ASIC, what are you both of you doing about the $7.8 BILLION SCAMMED of Aussies in the last 3 years ?
Well besides trying to blame Real Advisers.
Useless, corrupt, mind numbingly misguided Super Consumers & ASIC.
Omg what a pathetic attempt to show relevance . I do question who super consumers are actually advocating for . May just throw an elephant in the room and ask why haven’t they ever questioned the river of dollars passed through the industry funds to affiliated unions and in to the ALP?
And then there’s the naming of stadiums and sponsorship of NRL teams. All from the slush fund created by a bit of “clipping ” on fees. Members benefit?
Unbelievable.
Any mention of back packers being allowed to give advice going forward ?
Twilight zone stuff and clearly Xavier is either clueless or conflicted.
An organisation associated with Choice and funded, in large part by a $5Mgrant from a Government regulator from a levy imposed on funds…..no conflicts here….”move along, nothing to see here” Only in Australia!
Didn’t the Liberal’s give these guys over a $1M under Morrison – to help advocate for Financial Advice or something – the same year they gave the FPA $1M to help Women enter Financial Planning? It was all just after the RC if I remember correctly.
Hence why there is a concern about the drafting of the apparent reforms linked to the QAR. Whatever happens it will be the fault of the financial planner.