ASIC cites DBFO as expansion vehicle for super ‘nudges’
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has suggested that superannuation funds may be able to leverage the next tranche of the Government’s Delivering Better Financial Outcomes (DBFO) legislation to expand their use of “nudges”.
At the same time as taking some superannuation funds to task for failing to adequately deliver member communications around retirement, ASIC’s Report 818 specifically pointed to the next tranche of DBFO as an opportunity.
While some financial planning representative organisations have expressed concern about the types of ‘nudges” being applied by superannuation funds to members, ASIC said “‘nudges’ are an approach trustees can use to deliver targeted retirement communications to member cohorts”.
“We understand a nudge to be a message prompting the recipient to consider taking a certain action, or series of actions. An example of a retirement communication nudge is a short, targeted message encouraging members approaching retirement to access retirement planning resources or seek financial advice,” it said.
“Most nudges we observed were age-based and sent to members upon reaching a certain age (e.g. 55 or 60). Some nudges were sent based on behavioural or transactional triggers including opening an account, attending an event or accessing a resource.
“Better nudges have trigger events which are appropriate, so that the message sent is likely to be relevant to the member receiving it. Trustees may leverage their data and research capabilities to develop appropriate trigger events,” it said.
The ASIC report noted that all but one of the 12 trustees it had reviewed as part of Report 818 had used external service providers for their retirement communications such as:
- marketing agencies – to develop the messaging and design of retirement communications
- financial advisers – to provide retirement-related advice and information to members, and ›
- research agencies – to collect data used to develop retirement communications, such as member feedback.
“Most trustees reported they had some oversight measures in place and maintained accountability for retirement communications containing external input.
“However, trustees had mixed success in substantiating their governance arrangements over these external service providers. Some referred to service level agreements, while others could not provide any documented monitoring processes,” the report said.
What’s unfolding here isn’t just a communications strategy — it’s industrial action by the industry super sector and its ideological allies inside ASIC. The language of “nudging” is being used to sidestep the Corporations Act’s definition of “influence,” which is the legal trigger for financial product advice. By recasting influence as “helpful engagement,” super funds can now guide members toward in-house retirement products without breaching advice laws.
It’s clever lawfare wrapped in the language of behavioural economics and member care. Under the banner of “Delivering Better Financial Outcomes,” ASIC is effectively legitimising mass behavioural influence campaigns — age-based and data-driven prompts designed to steer retirees into pension and annuity products run by the same funds. All this can be done without calling it advice, and without the accountability that would normally attach to licensed recommendations.
This is not regulatory neutrality; it’s an orchestrated power move. Industry super funds are consolidating control over retirement flows at the exact moment millions of Australians are transitioning out of accumulation and into drawdown. By shaping communications rules in their own image, they’re building a system that captures 100s of billions for life — locking members into their products under the guise of “nudges” and “better outcomes.”
The brilliance of it is that it looks benign — small, well-timed prompts dressed up as service. But behind it sits a deliberate redefinition of influence and a quiet rewriting of the perimeter between marketing, guidance, and advice. It’s one of the most sophisticated examples of regulatory positioning we’ve seen from the sector.
Or more simply – they are attempting to create two different playing fields with two different sets of rules.
Don’t forget also, that collective fee charging to effectively pay for these nudges is, prima facie, fee for no service for perhaps millions of superannuants.
It’s an absolute disgrace.
Regulatory Capture Corruption from ASIC & Industry Super Funds is ever increasing.
And then they get to wrap their members into their own inhouse retirement products such as a lifetime annuity, invested as per their inhouse investment team into the governments pet social projects.
This appears to be yet another ‘carve out’ for advice delivery by not calling it advice to circumvent the responsibility that comes with advice.
All of this to the benefit of Trustees, in the name of providing ‘member services’.
We have new words to describe this chicanery:
Collective Charging = Fee for No Service
Premium Adjustment = Commission
Nudge = Advice
Utterly disgusting.
You missed “profit sharing” which is how ASIC described the commissions industry super funds receive from the life insurance companies.