<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
	<title>Financial Standard Comments - Majority of SMSF establishments based on bad advice: ASIC</title>
	<description>Nearly two thirds of SMSFs established under the recommendations of a financial adviser are unsuitable to their needs and put retirement savings at risk, an ASIC review reveals.</description>
	<link>https://www.financialstandard.com.au/feed/latest?story=179810504</link>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2025 14:00:08 +1100</lastBuildDate>
	<pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2025 14:00:08 +1100</pubDate>
	<language>en-AU</language>
	<copyright>Copyright 2026 Financial Standard</copyright>
	<ttl>5</ttl>
	<item>
		<title>Comment by Hugh Kilpatrick (Retirement Income)</title>
		<link></link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
<p><p>Hallelujah!<p>I continuously see people with a Self Managed Super Fund that is totally unsuitable for them. Most notably they have been put in property developments that are not worth what they paid for them years later. PLUS they are often classed as a wholesale investor when they don&#39;t know their elbow from their armpit. Critically, going into Retirement with an SMSF ignores the tendency for diminished capacity.<p>&quot;also lose important protections, including the benefits of prudential regulation and the ability to make a complaint about the fund or its trustees to AFCA&quot; - worrisome.</p></p><p><a href="">Reply to article</a></p><p>For original story, <a href="">Click Here.</a></p>
]]></description>
		<dc:creator>Hugh Kilpatrick (Retirement Income)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2025 14:00:08 +1100</pubDate>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>