ISA calls out banks over fee structures

The difference being that profits from the banks go to shareholders, unlike their competitors. So in the situation where members of an Industry Super Fund invest in bank shares, as they do, the dividends [from profits] are accrued in the members retirement accounts. Unlike the surplus from the Industry Fund admin fees that may sometimes end up in some of the most surprising places. The industry funds might want to have a rethink about this latest campaign.

What about the vertically integrated nature of ISF's and their advice arms? How many clients get a recommendation for anything other than the Union Super fund that they are currently in? Or for insurance outside that offered by the union super fund? The percentage would be so small as to not be funny, but don't worry union funds are 'super'....not.

It seems like Mr Whiteley has cherry picked stats here....or been cute with his use of terminology...When he says "The study found that the super industry drew an estimated $30 billion in fees during the 2014/15 financial year, with 91% of that revenue paid to commercial wealth management businesses," it seems to imply this is paid to everyone but the not for profit sector....he then cherry picks another comment around "Only 9% is paid to not-for-profit trustees for administration and operations" to try and continue with this assertion.

I wonder why it is not stated in this article that the not for profit sector probably contribute to over 60% of the 91% revenue paid to commercial wealth management businesses, like the fund managers and asset consultants they use....the administrators they use, the Custodians they use, and the insurers they use? The Marketing and Advertising agencies they use...?

Wow....nice one sided discussion here ?