First State Super believes that the federal government’s draft legislation proposing to remove the ability for members to pay for financial advice out of MySuper products could significantly impact the retirement outcomes of low to middle-income earners who might not otherwise be able to afford advice.
“Any legislation that creates a barrier for Australian superannuation fund members to access quality financial advice is not in our members’ or the community’s best interests,’ said First State Super chief executive Deanne Stewart.
“MySuper products are designed to be simple, but that doesn’t mean that members in these products don’t require the same advice and guidance to navigate our complex retirement system. Advice is product agnostic and is a critical service that should ultimately provide peace of mind and confidence to members, in addition to a better financial outcome.”
A third of First State’s members currently pay for advice through their MySuper product and may not be able to afford it any other way, according to Ms Stewart.
“Our members are teachers, nurses, police, firefighters, paramedics and other government workers,” she said.
“For many, their retirement goals are modest. They simply want the confidence and peace of mind to pay down debt, cover their day-to-day living expenses, maintain their current lifestyle and, remain connected to family, friends and the community they have spent a lifetime caring for and protecting.”
According to First State, research shows that the average 50-year-old was more than $50,000 better off in a MySuper product than an average Choice product – so making someone switch to pay for financial advice could have significant consequences.
“We strongly believe that the rules governing MySuper and Choice products should be the same, so all Australians have the equal access to quality, timely financial advice, to help them achieve the retirement they deserve,” Ms Stewart said.
I don’t think this firm should be allowed to deduct fees from super. Financial Planners deducting from super yes but StatePlus (First State Super) NO…. They’ve off loaded middle and low net worth clients to phone based advisers. I don’t know what type of person (so called advisers) would work for such a firm, knowing those clients are being charged ongoing advice fees deducted from their funds and you’re listed as the adviser. You’re based in Wollongong or Sydney servicing many many hundreds of clients in far locations like Ballarat etc trying to have a personal relationship with so many. It’s a ticking FASEA time bomb for those monkeys in such centres..and the reason I say NO is it will reflect on all advisers ultimately and it’s simply not professional.
I’m calling b**lsh*t. If First State truly believed in advice they would let ‘external’ advisers deduct advice fees, but they only let their own advisers do it and only promote their own service. How these ‘First State’ advisers are meeting the code of ethics beats me.
What did First State expect! When you breach the sole purpose test a million times this is what happens. Stop spending members money on massive marketing campaigns, subsidised in-house ‘only’ advice, and on defaming retail funds.
Cry me a river. First State Super have been receiving “mandated” members for years and now they “might” lose a few.
Moron Pollies making every move possible to make it as hard as possible to get and pay affordable rates for Advice.
In the same breath saying they want to increase amount of people getting advice and make access to advice easier.
Oxymoronic Bloody Pollies with ZERO REAL WORLD IDEA.
Canberra Bubble buffoons !!!!
wonder how the fee for no service is panning out at First State Super, must be a mess. One of their advisers told me he has 154 ongoing clients paying entire annual advice fees from super. So if that is the case and given the amount of advisers they have, surely they have some dirty laundry.
Good to know that Hayne’s blatant bias towards union funds at the RC hasn’t bought their silence on one of his more ignorant and stupid recommendations. Seems like the only person supporting this one is Frydenberg. There is no end to the bad policy he is willing to implement for the sake of a cheap headline.
This is lazy nonesense. If advice is limited to just superannuation related matters, then it’s not really advice. Is that perhaps the problem – First State limits the scope of advice to only their own product and can’t either expand the scope or demonstrate value otherwise?
Real financial advisers don’t work for superannuation funds. Fund advisers are mostly advisers that couldn’t make it in the real world, they seek the safety of the mothers apron strings. This maybe harsh, but its true.