CFS puts heatmap failures in context – 1% of 170 options
Colonial First State has not been taking the failure of one of its superannuation investment products in the latest Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) heatmaps exercise lying down, giving financial advisers a letter to provide to clients explaining the issue.
In its letter to advisers, CFS is arguing that the CFS investment option together with two Perpetual investment options offered on the company’s FirstChoice platform “represent less than 1% of funds across the more than 170 options available on the FirstChoice platform”.
What is more CFS is claiming that two of the investment options have lately been posting improved performance.
The communication, signed off by CFS Group Executive, Distribution, Bryce Quirk, acknowledges that some media coverage named one CFS investment option and two Perpetual options offered on the FirstChoice platform.
“The three options highlighted represent less than 1% of funds across the more than 170 options available on the FirstChoice platform,” Quirk’s communication said.
“We’ve closely monitored the two Perpetual options and noted improved performance more recently, with both ahead of their benchmark over the three years to 31 March 2023. For the FirstChoice High Growth fund, performance is broadly in line with its benchmark over this period.”
“While there will be periods where some funds do not meet our performance expectations, we are pleased that CFS offers a wide range of high performing funds including more than 50 which delivered investment returns of more than 10% per annum over the last 3 or 5 years.”
“As part of their heatmap assessment, APRA also examined fees and costs and highlighted 48 products across the market that had significantly high administration fees. There were no Colonial First State funds highlighted as having high administration fees, underscoring the highly competitive fees offered on FirstChoice which are among the lowest in the market.”
“We will now undertake a further review of the options mentioned by APRA and consider if any changes should be made.”
It’s about time that these funds showed some balls and fought back against the industry funds who have been blatantly lying to the public for decades.
Advertising a growth fund as balanced one of there biggest deceptions. Not revaluing their property assets correctly during the GFC and the pandemic. The retail companies they continue to attack need to go toe to toe with Industry Funds in the interests of competition and the general public. The likes of CFS should stop pussy footing around and take them on.
Industry Funds claims have more holes than Swiss cheese. They have been anti advice for decades and now they want to change the law so they can masquerade as advisers without the education or authority to do so. The advice industry should take a leaf out of CFSs book and also take on the false claims of these dominant funds.
Unfortunately what we’re dealing with are corrupt Public Service officials. You couldn’t advertise your fund only costs $1.50 a week to run, and you couldn’t advertise your fund made a double-digit return over a selective 12-month period some 3 years old. That culture still exists. Imagine if your business made such outrageous advertising claims. Because Financial Planners are the gatekeepers between this corruption and Australians, it’s the reason why Financial Planners have a target on their back by ASIC.