If you take 4 years to transfer a dead members Super to the wife, months for a switch or you get fined for Greenwashing you’re the problem.

The downright illegal and immoral practices of these Super funds have hit the headlines recently. Practices Advisers have seen for decades. It’s these very poor client service standards that encourage people to look at failed products attractive.

If Super Funds lifted their game, both in product features, they way they worked with Advisers, and Customer Service, people would not be looking to invest in products like United Global Capital in the first place.

They need to be part of the solution, because they’re the problem.

Jon, agree the FARSEA process has been a disaster and continues.
As for Canberra as whole, what an obscene, corrupt joke it is towards Advisers.

On a winning note Jon, there is and will continue to be bucket loads of Real Adviser work and demand for wealthy clients.
Industry Funds only think of FUM and keeping it and the Union, Bikie and ALP clipping the ticket.
ISA have no care for real advice or any client relationship.

And that my friend is where you will win, good honest, valuable long term client relationships.

The mass over regulations and obscene Canberra rubbish noise never goes away. But try tune it out and focus and the client relationships and great work you can do.

Advice only becomes personal when you recommend either a dollar amount of something to buy or a qty of something to buy.
(When it comes to sellinh something the same applies – the client tells you the qty of sell of their holding)

You can tell a client why BHP is a buy for example so long as they the client tells you how much to buy or what qty to buy. Never talk dollar amount or qty. Leave that for the client. Providing trading tips or opinion based on technicals or trend following isn’t personal advice. Just ensure the client signs before their first trade a General Advice and Execution letter. It’s at most a few paragrpahs.

Agree. I’m finishing my FP Masters degree at the moment.

I’m very much of the view that I’ve wasted all of these resources, time, money, everything else to have a Government that is going to let someone with 6 months education do what I do.

To then give super funds the ability to collectively charge (fee for no service)… How can advisers compete against that?

I’m incredibly angry and cynical about how Canberra works.

It’s pure filth.

Whilst the initial CSLR explosions have been outside the APRA regulated super space, the next big one, which is fermenting every day, is much closer to home for the super funds. Shield Master Fund and First Guardian, were products that were available on super fund platforms. Where this will hit the CSLR, is that one large licensee, owned by a listed financial services company, was heavily exposed to both Shield Master Fund and First Guardian. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars of exposure to both of these disasters. This information is out there and is being repeatedly published in the mainstream media. It is now just a matter of time until it blows up. What are the super funds going to say then?

Jon you are correct! And after Jones announcement on the SIS act being changed to allow super funds to levy all members for the cost of advice, ostensively allowing them to fund and build Wealth advice businesses internally and be allowed to give advice on practically everything we do has me wondering why the hell bother?

As usual the union funds want their cake while they eat it too. Nothing new to see here.

I haven’t had an AFCA complaint, or a product fail. Why should I pay?

The CSLR is a joke. So are the people who designed it.

Australian Financial Services legislation and regulation seem two-tiered.

Advisers existence perpetually under assault.

Unlevel playing field.

Disgusting.