The fund today announced the release of its ‘SMSF Profiler’, designed to provide consumers “accurate information” on SMSF establishment.
NGS Super boss Anthony Rodwell-Ball said the tool was developed after “member research” detected many were at risk from SMSF information that is “biased, conflicted or just scaremongering”.
“The SMSF Profiler is an online, multiple choice questionnaire that assesses an individual’s suitability for managing their own SMSF across pivotal areas; asking critical questions that need to be considered, guiding them to make an informed decision,” Mr Rodwell-Ball said.
“It is designed in such a way that should members find that they have the attributes and time to run an SMSF once using the tool, this conclusion is delivered to them transparently in the findings.”
The industry fund says the tool shows it is acting in accordance with its responsibility to educate and inform members about the positives and negatives of various super options.
The profile tool can be accessed here: http://www.ngssuper.com.au/super-members/learn-with-us/smsf-profiler/
Paranoia reigns. This is a positive given the number of SMSFs that are set up to “give greater control of investments”. I have been doing SMSFs for more than 10 years, have one myself and have set many up as a SSA (specialist) but the world has changed – you can now do a lot more, more efficiently and at lower cost and without the obligations and responsibilities of being a trustee through a range of other options with or without advice. Stop and consider the landscape before automatically crying “conspiracy”.
Definitely biased against SMSFs. Just another way these jokers are trying to retain their own FUM. Why are they not being investigated by ASIC for false and misleading information and a conflict of interest?????
9 out of 10 SMSF’s I see do not need to exist, and I’m a SMSF Specialist Adviser who has specialised in SMSF’s and had my own since the 90’s.
Accountants set them up out of greed for revenue and/or fear of financial planners (they perceive us to know less than they do and as salespeople) yet as noted, the vast majority I see shouldn’t exist with clients who have no idea of rules or responsibilities and all too often, contributions just siting in cash and no investment advice ever sought or given (apart from the accountant giving it informally). Accountants needs more regulation in this space, get of financial planners backs and good on this tool for showing most would be SMSF members that they probably don’t need or shouldnt have one!
Just did the test. It is hilarious as well as deceptive. Whats the saying ‘Don’t ask a question you don’t already know the answer to”
I have successfully run my own SMSF for years and answered all the questions knowing that the survey is biased against SMSF and still couldnt get to the suitable section of the dial. What a joke.
Got “Suitable” when I did the test – I think there were a couple of “advanced understanding” questions on the role of trustee that may have a bearing on the ‘Moderate” or “Suitable” determination.
Geeze even knowing what they were trying to do I only got a “moderate”. Experienced investor direct shares, direct property etc
Once again “our” unions looking out for themselves first and foremost.
Unions attacking accountants! What fun!
Of course the unions are quite right to point out that SMSFs may not be appropriate for a lot of people. Many SMSFs are the inhouse products of accountants, and are set up as a result of inappropriate advice driven by highly conflicted remuneration.
In the old days, the same claims could have been made about many financial planners.
But now licensed financial planners have a legally enforceable ban on conflicted remuneration, and a statutory best interests duty. Accountants do not.
Hmmm, just took the NGS SMSF Profiler test to test it out. I think the main driver for NGS is its need to retain FUM, something that they criticise financial planners about. The test told me that despite having significant capital, contributions of over $25K pa, wanted to buy a property and had a need for insurance that they (NGS) were concerned that I was doing it for the wrong reasons. I compared their insurance quote and could find better cover at a cheaper price with a retail insurer.
We have all these great tools to help the public and trustees, however.
What the public see is booths like the ones in Robina Town Centre that pop up and market lost super and free give away, etc with the aim to sell a SMSF and Property Investment.
We need to ban this type of marketing in our Industry.
Industry and Government need to stop this as it does little for faith in Super.