Financial Standard Comments - Industry brawl erupts over super network ads

Comment by Keeping it real. ()

Keeping it real. () — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 12:44:57 +1000

Now, now David you know that 'embedded advisors' within industry funds such as Hostplus, CARE, MTAA, CSRF etc do not charge the true cost of provding an SOA. You know that they are subsidised by all the members. Unfortuanetly so does Shorten - given he was on the board of STA/Australiansuper.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by Trent ()

Trent () — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 14:01:04 +1000

Yep and Bill Shorten then champions the Industry Funds cause. Hmm so does he want an end to infighting or an end to people opposing him and the industry funds?
The industry funds are the only ones with malicious adds against advisers, all the others refer you to talk to an adviser.
About time the FPA actually done something for a change. Oh that's right because they lost the support of the instituions and industry funds and actually have to ensure there are some advisers left after all of this, because that's their only membership base left now.
Personally I think the whole lot of these people with an agenda should all be kept away from the financial advice areana and let the clients and advisers get on with protecting their wealth, as the government, ASIC , industry funds and the so called professional bodies have been doing a shambles of it.
A handful of rogue advisers (Storm) do the wrong thing and this lot a scoundrels above decide to use it as propaganda to ruin what is otherwise a great industry.
Mr Shorten, I'll have you know the Government has cost people a lot more than any dodgy adviser ever has. We all know there are corrupt politictions, so when are you going to ensure we opt into there service? Personally I'd prefer to hold onto the money you take from me as tax as I want to opt out of your crap service!

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by Sam ()

Sam () — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 14:01:51 +1000

Maybe if Industry Funds were more transparent and allowed external Financial Advice Fees on their Funds they would be more widely supported by Financial Advisers. How can a Financial Adviser recommend an Industry Fund or have them on their Approved Product List when there is no objective information on the inner workings of their investments.
Industry Funds are there to benefit members and shouldn't be giving advice. How can an Industry Fund provide a client with comprehensive independant advice? There is as much or more conflicts of interest in Industry Fund advice as with the rest of the Financial Planning industry.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by ATIS ()

ATIS () — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 14:30:46 +1000

Wow, The FPA has noticed the bleeding obvious just now? What an effective response!

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by Deo Volante ()

Deo Volante () — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 14:36:52 +1000

In my experience, your average "Blue Collar" worker, who is member of an industry super fund, is blissfully ignorant of advice being available from the scheme. This section of the market is disgracefully underadvised as a result. I would suggest, Industry Super Funds, rather than bashing Finacial Advisers, should be embraceing them and allowing them to charge fees to their funds. I venture this would very rapidly stimulate greater numbers of these members gaining quality advice.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by Richard ()

Richard () — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 14:55:07 +1000

Here's a riddle for you:
How many Host Plus members can fit into the Host Plus box at the MCG this weekend?
Answer: None, unless you are a union official, govt minister, or board member of the ISN.
Run not for profit, only to benefit members...give me a break!!

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by Graham ()

Graham () — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 15:14:20 +1000

How true - most SMSF's are established by members who are tired of all this nonsense and just want clear concise investmenst that they understand and care about.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by Bob2 wrote ()

Bob2 wrote () — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 15:39:32 +1000

About time the FPA started to respond. And, Mr Shorten:Who started all this off? Industry Funds have had a field day for years on the subject of bagging any perceived opposition. They kept it up as there was no response hardly from anyone.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by Ray ()

Ray () — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 15:48:24 +1000

Industry funds seem to box financial advice up into an "event". You have an event coming up, you get advice and pay for it at that time, and that's it. You're set. If you have another event in 5 years time, come see us again.
Anyone that knows anything about good financial advice understands that it is ONGOING advice that is most valuable. Our job is to look after clients on an ongoing basis and most of the time they don't really know when they really need advice!

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by Peter ()

Peter () — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 17:08:15 +1000

I've been listening to the industry fund rubbish for years. False claims that a member getting no advise with low fees will do far better than someone getting good advise with higher fees is absolute rubbish. It also shows industry funds have no idea what services advisers provide. Administrative and other services offered by advisers should not be paid for with a one upfront commission or fee. The hypocrisy is just silly. Industry funds charge ongoing fees for admin. Subcontracting admin or other services to advisers via fees or commission should not be an issue.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by SCOTT ()

SCOTT () — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 10:24:04 +1000

Does Mr Shorten see every voter in his electorate every year?If he doesn't why not because he is being paid to service them!The hypocricy is amazing.Is there an 'industry ' politician we can vote for that doesn't get paid and delivers no service?

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by The Socialist Agenda... ()

The Socialist Agenda... () — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:55:35 +1000

Centralisation is a core MO for socialists. They hate free enterprise, love bureacracy and love state control of everything. Thank god the reds will be gone at the next election. Comrades Gillard, Shorten, Combet, Ferguson et al will be looking for new jobs. However I'm not sure anyone in free enterprise would want to hire them. Then again they might be able to get a job panicking investors into annuities at the bottom of the interest rate cycle, like JC did.
In terms of FPA utterings, isn't it a case of too little too late. Why didn't they contest the Industry fund ads years ago? The damage has already been done. Surely ASIC could hardly be viewed as being impartial, letting ISN run those escalator ads. They are incredibly misleading, especially in light of the MTAA bungles, which cost members dearly. Funny that story didn't hit the mainstream current affairs media isn't it? Media Rule 1. never shoot the goose that lays the golden egg.
I don't know how other advisers have been impacted by the ISN smear campaign but I've had clients trying to give me referrals, only to be told "Oh, you don't deal with one of those financial planners do you? They're all crooks didn't you know."
The problem with our industry is the lack of unity. Individually we don't have the deep pockets of an ISN to fight against the defamation being perpetrated against us. Whilst they seem to be able to tap members funds for all sorts of dirty marketing initiatives.
One can only speculate about an Australia without professional financial advice. What with one of the highest levels of consumer debt, poor savings and underinsurance. I hope this government understands what they are doing to the future of the country.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.