Govt canvasses mandated super voice in advised retirement relationships
ANALYSIS
Treasury’s consultation paper around providing guidance to superannuation fund trustees on best practice principles for retirement income solutions has canvassed those trustees involving themselves in pre-existing relationships between financial advisers and their clients.
While superannuation entities and lobby groups last week went through the customary process of welcoming the consultation process, it is financial advisers who should be alert the implications which might flow from the proposed approach.
Under the heading “Engaging with advised members” the Treasury consultation paper actually suggests that trustees engage with advised members to “empower” them to “have more informed discussion with their financial advisers”.
The consultation paper then asks stakeholders whether trustees have the capability in place to support members across different stages of life, including ahead of retirement?
“If yes, provide a brief overview of current practice. If not, why not?” the consultation asks.
The consultation paper acknowledges that “some trustees have large proportion of their membership in an ongoing financial advice relationship” and that these “these members generally have an individually-tailored retirement solution, developed in consultation with their financial adviser, that takes into account their broader circumstances and goals”.
“The role of the trustee in supporting members in advised relationships to achieve positive retirement outcomes may be more complex due to the high degree of tailoring that these members receive,” it says.
“The principles call for trustees to ensure that their suite of products and product settings are appropriate for the characteristics of their members and member cohorts, which includes advised members. Whilst recognising the benefits to the member from an advised relationship, the principles suggest trustees have scope to support advised members to achieve positive outcomes by including advised members in member engagement efforts with members approaching retirement, including information on the trustee-designed retirement income solutions and products available through the fund (principle 16),” the consultation paper says.
“In doing so, trustees may provide insights on options in retirement and empower members to have more informed discussion with their financial advisers. This information is particularly valuable for members who may exit an advised relationship over time or do not have an ongoing financial advice relationship to ensure these members can achieve and maintain good retirement outcomes.
“It is not suggested that this information should be provided by the trustee in a repeated or ongoing fashion. In acknowledgment of the existing client-advisor relationship, the principles suggest engagement can state that a member may already have a tailored retirement income solution,” the consultation says.
What problem are we fixing???
More interference, more red tape, more nanny state garbage.
How about instead of this nonsense treasury works on a solution so advisers can access super information on the ato portal.
Who are these people and why are we, the tax payer, paying their salaries?
Collective charging = Commissions
Treasury corruptly trying to find ways to justify HIDDEN COMMISSIONS charged to every super fund member.
Even when the members are already paying for personal Advice.
Will end up making it impossible for licensed advisers to provide advice with them being replaced by the Union influenced fund trustees. Nothing to see here but Albo needs a job post politics.
Industry Fund Super Fund Trustees along with the corrupt Treasury are again trying to carve themselves out from competition, and continue to allow and re-inforce a vertically aligned product to self promote, and advise without proper comprehensive financial advice. Super Fund trustees are not qualified advisers, and should not be asked how advice should be run. This is not the role of a Fund trustee.
The treasury should be Liasing with professional advisers on this issue, not buddying up to fund trustees to effectively protect their commissions for no service regime. They are not qualified advisers so stop trying to make trustees give personal advice when they have a clear conflict of interest in retaining retirement funds so they can maintain there commissions for no service.
Treasury needs to wake up to this conflict of interest or move aside.Its actions in seeing trustees as a go to for all decisions is corrupt behaviour!
In my opinion:
Another attempt by ‘friends of the party’ to muddy the work of professional advisers.
Trustee should not be in this space. They are not qualified to be in this space.
This is an obfuscation tool attempting to be blessed in the name of education.
If this is approved, it will be one of the most disgusting pieces of legislation passed.