Andrew Gregory has assumed the role of head of financial advice and education at UniSuper in a move that will see the fund beef up its advice offering in the midst of a raging debate over whether super funds should play a bigger role in advice.
With an extensive background in financial services, Mr Gregory will have end-to-end responsibility for education, guidance and advice — general, intrafund and comprehensive personal — to drive member engagement and satisfaction across UniSuper’s 500,000 members, the fund said in a statement on Thursday.
UniSuper has high hopes that Mr Gregory and his team will “uplift” the fund’s advice offering, while exploring the provision of cost-effective digital advice to assist more members in building their retirement.
Last year, UniSuper’s advice team is said to have supported over 74,000 advice interactions, with more anticipated in the coming period.
Commenting on his appointment, Mr Gregory said: “Financial advice is one of the most important investments an Australian can make in their future. Taking the time to seek advice today can transform your future. That’s why UniSuper is such an exciting fund to be a part of, with its advice offering central to its long-term strategy.”
“I’m delighted to join a team which prioritises access to affordable, accessible and high-quality advice for all UniSuper members — and I’m looking forward to bringing my knowledge and experience to help deliver retirement outcomes for members.”
Mr Gregory’s recent roles included the CEO of Arrow Private Wealth, general manager of MLC Advice, where he led NAB’s national employed advice network and general manager of NAB’s regional retail banking network in Victoria and Tasmania.
The list of draft proposals from the Quality of Advice Review (QAR) published at the end of August recommended that superannuation legislation should be amended to expand the role of super funds in advice.
Namely, the QAR is proposing to allow superannuation funds to be able to provide personal advice to members and charge for this advice.
While some have backed the idea, others, like Shadow Minister for Financial Services, Stuart Robert, have argued that opening the door for super funds to give advice would be a “retrograde step”.
“Super funds should stick to super. It’s not there to save the world and solve every problem,” Mr Robert said on a recent Momentum Media podcast.
However, law firm Herbert Smith Freehills has argued that super funds could play a broader role in improving retirement outcomes. While the proposal paper suggested that the scope of this advice would be limited to advice about the member’s interest in the fund, the law firm said earlier this month that there would be merit in further broadening the scope of this proposed authorisation.
At the time, the firm also argued that the legal basis upon which adviser service fees are paid from super balances is flawed.
“We propose that advisers be solely responsible for ensuring that the fees they deduct from a superannuation fund relate to the member’s interest in that fund and that superannuation trustees be relieved of the burden of seeking to monitor the activities of advice licensees.”
Why does this sound like advisers will get shafted again..
On a scale of 1 to 10, how corrupt is the Australian Public Service (ie Treasury, ASIC and Levy) for finding conflicts of interest when product providers pay Advisers (Commissions) and make it illegal only to implement a system where the product providers now own and control the advice?