Industry Super Australia has drawn on elements of recent controversies within the financial advice sector to launch a new public awareness campaign to Australia’s superannuation members.
Under its new ‘In Good Hands‘ theme, the message from ISA to super fund members is based around what it means to be with a fund that is run only for the benefit of its members.
In its release accompanying the launch of the campaign, ISA makes reference to what it refers to as the ‘watered down’ FoFA legislation, including the perceived opportunity for conflicted advice to be delivered, as an argument that supports the value of industry fund super options. It also comments on recent ‘big bank’ advice scandals as another reason for super fund members to consider investing their super via the industry superannuation network of public sector funds.
“The advertising campaign seeks to raise the awareness of five million Industry SuperFund members that unlike bank-‐owned super funds, Industry SuperFunds do not pay sales incentives to financial advisers or other bank staff and are run only to benefit members,” said ISA Chief Executive, David Whitely.
… the banks have successfully lobbied the Government to water down consumer protections in financial advice
“Despite financial planning scandals at two prominent banks, the banks have successfully lobbied the Government to water down consumer protections in financial advice, including the requirement for financial advisers to act in their client’s best interests and to bring back a range of sales incentives,’ added Mr Whitely, who continued, “Our members can be confident that the funds which carry the Industry SuperFund “in good hands” symbol do not pay sales incentives to financial advisers or other staff and are run only to benefit members.”
Commencing this week, the campaign will be conducted via television, print, digital and outdoor advertising. Click here to access the new TV commercial promoting the ISA ‘In Good Hands’ message.
Your measured comments regarding this new ISA campaign will be welcome…
Run only to benefit members and the union movement. Significant privacy law breaches and an industry fund being billed $93,000 for 2.5 days work by a union official have been uncovered by the current royal commission. ISF are so quick to point the finger at others, perhaps a little of their own medicine would be in order.
I am dealing with a large industry fund to obtain the best available benefits for a widow whose spouse died 9 months ago, including insurances and super death benefits. I am appalled by their lack of sensitivity, their time-wasting, costly inefficiency and sometimes their sheer incompetence. They show little interest in “acting in their members best interests”. They just don’t care – except about getting their hands on the members money.
Another cheap shot from the ISN which continues to play on the stereotype in which they portray both advice and their members, and they are wrong on both counts. By the time a consumer is sitting opposite an adviser the consumer has generally already made the decision to seek ‘personal advice’ … a space where the ISN is hopeless and has little to offer particularly as they have little or no engagement with professional broad base financial planning.
All the ISN can do is scare members out of looking into what broad based advice could mean for them.
Here’s a news flash… The world of advice is changing, differences in cost will be directly related to the level of engagement and satisfaction will grow as a result.
The ISN will need to eat some humble pie at some point, as their message while consistent is counter productive to truly good consumer outcomes.
How about an advertising campaign where by:
1. Client is on the phone asking why a rollover is taking so long to process, the call centre staff rips up the form meanwhile the $100 note keep pilling up on the desk.
2. Client is on phone (in tears) asking for when the insurance claims will be processed. Meanwhile the $100 notes keep pilling up on the desk
3. Client is asking advice on which is their overall situation and getting passed onto a ‘in-house’ adviser with a big sign behind him saying we provide advice on ‘Super, Investments, Retirement planning, Risk management, Cash-flow planning, Debt management. With all bar super crossed out. Mind you the ‘Super’ also have a fine print below stating something like ‘only our own super fund’.
I personally do not have anything against industry super funds if they didn’t keep peddling mistruths.
The above comments give some idea of the hypocrisy of the industry funds. Why does the media when it needs a comment about superannuation, go to Mr. Whitely who couldn’t lie straight in bed.
The industry funds get away with misleading advertising and propaganda at least until ASIC finally get involved as we saw recently.
Whitely is always banging on about commissions but who pays him for his inane comments? Not the government or the taxpayer, oh hang on, must be from fees on the funds so it is the union fund members who pay him.
All they get for that is appalling service.
Help me out here I am a risk specialist so an an interested spectator to the investment advice space. I thought conflicted remuneration on investment advice was dead, buried, shuffled off the mortal coil, an un parrot. I think the Banks did water down FOFA in pursuit of being able to promote their own products and the genuine advice industry has been tarred with the same brush..
Yes I DO NOT consider advice genuine when the palate of recommendations employ products from one vendor who pays the salary of the advisor.
My understanding is genuine advisers who charge a fee for their service do not receive commissions and their only incentive to recommend one financial product over another is the best interest of their client.
Am I terminally naive or did I miss something?
Comments are closed.