Intra-fund advice has created advice unfairness

treasury Steve Blizard intra-fund advice financial planning groups financial planners industry funds super funds superannuation funds FOFA future of financial advice financial advice FSG Financial Services Guides industry super funds fee disclosure statements default funds

26 February 2020
| By Mike |
image
image
expand image

A ‘cone of silence’ exists around intra-fund advice that has created an unfair legislative environment that favours one group of financial advisers over others.

That is a central premise of a submission to Treasury by West Australian-based financial adviser, Steve Blizard who said he believed there had been excessive media focus on Future of Financial Advice (FoFA) legislation since 2013, but virtually nothing about intra-fund advice payments “whereby default super fund marketing representatives and their advisers are remunerated”.

Within his submission, Blizard has cited examples (contained within the Financial Services Guides (FSG) of industry superannuation funds of those funds paying ‘bonuses’ of up to $40,000 to financial advisers.

“While bank staff have been totally banned form earning sales bonuses, many Industry Super fund staff and advisers are permitted under the intra-fund system to earn ‘performance bonsues’, in additional to receiving complimentary gym memberships,” his submission said.

“While intra-fund advisers deliver a certain level of compliance information for clients (i.e.Statements of Advice for rollovers), they do not have to comply with any other form of FOFA red-tape, such as annual Fee Disclosure Statements, nor do they have to chase up bi-annual Opt Ins, simply to get paid.”

“Instead, most intra-fund staff and advisers are remunerated primarily from collective administration fees automatically deducted from all super fund members,” Blizard’s submission said.

His submission argued that collective administration should only be charged by superannuation fund trustees for simple administration and provision of general factual information to fund members.

“Collective fees should not be charged to members unless the fund trustee obtains annual consent from members for these fees to be charged as administration fees from their fund,” Blizard’s submission said.

He said that, alternatively, all advice fees provided by Default Funds should be charged on a ‘user pays’ basis with informed consent provided by the fund member in advance for those fees.

“Any other form of personal advice should be charged directly to the member seeking advice, and not paid for by other members who are not receiving that advice. All advisers employed by that Trustee, who are providing financial product advice should not be remunerated by other members in lieu.”

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

MARKET INSIGHTS

Completely agree Peter. The definition of 'significant change is circumstances relevant to the scope of the advice' is s...

3 weeks 4 days ago

This verdict highlights something deeply wrong and rotten at the heart of the FSCP. We are witnessing a heavy-handed, op...

1 month ago

Interesting. Would be good to know the details of the StrategyOne deal....

1 month ago

Insignia Financial has confirmed it is considering a preliminary non-binding proposal received from a US private equity giant to acquire the firm. ...

1 week 2 days ago

Six of the seven listed financial advice licensees have reported positive share price growth in 2024, with AMP and Insignia successfully reversing earlier losses. ...

4 days 23 hours ago

Specialist wealth platform provider Mason Stevens has become the latest target of an acquisition as it enters a binding agreement with a leading Sydney-based private equi...

4 days 3 hours ago