Super, scams and scapegoats

Spot on!

Magnificent summary of those stakeholders who have avoided accountability over the last 30 years. The truth is finally emerging about ASIC incompetence, Research House conflicts, Trustee/custodian/auditor apathy and platform negligence.

Conflicted remuneration is often the root cause but remains legal if disclosed. An oxymoron perhaps.

Conflicted arrangements are the red flag of red flags, but can be easily overlooked amongst the myriad of client disclosures.

This article should be wrapped up in a bow and presented to all the stakeholders on behalf of the 15,000 of us. It sums things up perfectly.

ASIC just collected the largest fine of any one entity from ANZ. How much of that is going to be used to compensate clients that have lost money due to ASIC being asleep at the wheel?

too much legislation pointing at the wrong end of advice. great article.

"Stop scapegoating; start fixing"...and then you go on scapegoating...! Bad advice comes from those unable to give good advice and for maybe 90% of 'Planners' that includes investment advice. Portfolio planning (fundamentals) may be known, but when it comes to securities advice (including managed funds) most planners are out of their depth...and they're not alone. The people who own the platforms are also out of their depth and they employ the people who then set up acceptable product lists, based mainly on what adviser groups are demanding be allowed on platforms because they're the products they're pushing. If planners taught the fundamentals of investing, and ensured the key elements of estate planning and good savings habits were in place, but stopped short of securities advice they'd have much more success and their clients would be better off. But, from about 50 years ago, the 'Planning' industry was built on product sales and despite people like me campaigning for decades to scrap commissions as the way remuneration occurred it remained a key part of the advice model - despite the obvious lack of economic, investment and analysis skills of those who were otherwise very competent at the basics of planning.

Risks are what we should be teaching advisers to explain to clients, rather than reward/opportunity. The myth that people 'should' invest for growth is what starts the rot, because few advisers genuinely understand, let alone explain, the inherent risks (let alone the costs!) to their clients. It's the regular saving and the compounding that does the work, NOT the securities recommendations by the advisers. (If they knew what, where and how to invest they wouldn't be advisers! They'd be retired. Almost everyone knows that, deep down, even the clients, which is why they eventually turn on the advisers who let them down...)