Advice by super funds 'generally appropriate'
The corporate watchdog has found that financial advice provided by superannuation funds has overall been “generally appropriate”, with quality of advice being similar across retail and industry funds.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission’s (ASIC’s) ‘Report 639 Financial advice by superannuation funds’ looked at 25 super funds and how they helped members obtain financial advice.
ASIC Commissioner, Danielle Press, said: “We recognise that inappropriate superannuation advice can have a significant detrimental impact on members’ future financial security. Where we did see some risk of detriment, we will be following up with the advice provider and requiring that they review and remediate the affected member.
“More broadly, proper oversight of advice fee deductions from superannuation accounts for all advice, not just advice provided by superannuation trustees, is an area of ongoing focus for ASIC working with APRA.”
Press noted that the quality of advice was found to be similar across retail and industry funds.
“Due to the different sample sizes we used in our work however, it is not possible to properly compare the overall quality of advice based on all four fund types, and our findings are presented on an aggregate basis,” she said.
“We will continue to monitor developments in advice services offered by funds through our regular engagement with trustees and take action as required.”
Recommended for you
ASIC has cancelled the AFSL of a Perth financial services firm following payments to its clients by the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort after a failed managed investment scheme.
Bravura chief executive Andrew Russell has announced he will be stepping down from the company, just under two years after his appointment.
Financial advice businesses with a younger, wealthier client base are enjoying higher valuations and increased attention from potential buyers than those with older clients.
A financial advice firm has been penalised $11 million in the Federal Court for providing ‘cookie cutter advice’ to its clients and breaching conflicted remuneration rules.
