Opt in
13, Oct, 2011 (2:14 PM)
Have you had a bad experience with a financial adviser?
Do you think they give value-for-money service?
Disclaimer: The views expressed in these blogs are not necessarily those of National Seniors Australia. This blog is moderated and any content deemed inappropriate by the administrator will be removed, including comments that are offensive or discriminatory; libellous or defamatory; breach copyright, unless we have the owner’s permission to use it; or contain personal or commercially confidential material. The use of this blog to broadcast overtly party-political messages is also prohibited. Bloggers are urged to refrain from personal attacks. Any personal details shared here are public and can be found on internet searches.
This blog is now closed.
Opt in
13, Oct, 2011 (2:14 PM)
Have you had a bad experience with a financial adviser?Do you think they give value-for-money service?
Disclaimer: The views expressed in these blogs are not necessarily those of National Seniors Australia. This blog is moderated and any content deemed inappropriate by the administrator will be removed, including comments that are offensive or discriminatory; libellous or defamatory; breach copyright, unless we have the owner’s permission to use it; or contain personal or commercially confidential material. The use of this blog to broadcast overtly party-political messages is also prohibited. Bloggers are urged to refrain from personal attacks. Any personal details shared here are public and can be found on internet searches.
This blog is now closed.
Comments (113)
Robyn - 20, October, 2011 (14:46)
BTW is "bitch" (aimed at person) a worse swear word than "bullshit" (aimed at commentary)?
Lorikeet - 20, October, 2011 (14:35)
You're not a lateral thinker. When you're not behaving like a drunken toddler, you are communing with the other schoolyard bullies.
I have been in the blogosphere for 7 to 8 years, and you are without a doubt the most immature person of ANY age that I have ever encountered.
Sure, there have been quite a few bitches, but you take the cake.
Lorikeet - 20, October, 2011 (14:31)
As expected, the usual immature abusers are out in force because they have nothing better to do.
Helen - 20, October, 2011 (13:48)
Thanks for adding a bit of frivolity to the blog when I just plain got P'd off when I read Lorikeet's remarks.
I had a good laugh by all the other remarks as well. Perhaps we should feel sorry for her if this blog and others is all there is. At least we are made to think and that is good for our "mature" brains.
I look forward to the next topic - cheers...
Robyn - 20, October, 2011 (13:04)
ETS - 20, October, 2011 (12:45)
Robyn - 20, October, 2011 (12:36)
Robyn - 20, October, 2011 (12:19)
Dieter, your view of lateral thinking and my view of lateral thinking differ considerably.
Dieter B - 20, October, 2011 (11:33)
It may be my loss because Bob B sounds like a decent person.
ETS - 20, October, 2011 (11:20)
Helen - 20, October, 2011 (10:55)
From your comments it sounds like you have been married twice and are now not married, is that correct? I am still married to the same person who I have known since I was fifteen but would never pass judgement on anyone who chose to not marry by labelling them so.
There are many married "hypocrits" out there and many good people through circumstances are parents for what ever reason. It's like the Sunday morning christians of this world who point the finger when they are worse because of their bent beliefs...
Helen - 20, October, 2011 (10:36)
As far as those who are dependent on the small amount of our population working, you obviously haven't been to Sydney or Melbourne lately.
You are right there are immigrants who do work very hard (my husband and his family were in that category). There are however many coming now who are not and that is a reality. Many coming now are uneducated and untrained for anything. Most choose to live in the major cities and are on our social security system and after the Abbott debarcle, this is about to get worse even for future governments in my opinion and he is completely to blame by his actions on behalf of the Libs. Now those coming have access to our high court at the countries expense because of the loop hole that was put in place under Howard. I voted for Mr Howard and was a huge supporter but this was a blunder in my opinion opening a honey pot for the Lawyers to plunder and for those jumping the queue to access where genuine refugees can't...
Bob B - 20, October, 2011 (10:31)
You 9:22 third paragraph I almost agree with. She uses bizare linkages sometimes to present her range of 'ideas' but at other times they just spew out seemingly totally unconnected. This is very wide lateral thinking.
To challenge her leads to abuse in most peoples eyes and then claims 'victimisation' when the abused naturally respond. She must always have the last word so I now just don't even respond. Its interesting watching her weave her thoughts into any subject and, yes, she is interesting and thought provoking mostly.
Lorikeet - 20, October, 2011 (9:31)
Perhaps you need to re-read the part about suicide being the No. 1 killer of young Australian women.
Lorikeet - 20, October, 2011 (9:29)
I'm fairly certain the income from your superannuation is already being redistributed to the third world to meet Millennium Development Goals by 2015.
The biggest problem with superannuation doesn't lie with high fees and charges. As WEG quite rightly pointed out, the "opt in" policy could serve to move more money into Industry Super Funds. There are certainly plenty of global communists within the union movement.
You are certainly on the ball regarding our collapsing Age Pyramid, but your attitude to migrants leaves a lot to be desired. Most of those I've met are hard working people with a good set of values. They are to be welcomed, not discriminated against on racial, religious or any other grounds.
Migrants should be here to boost our Age Pyramid and work in booming manufacturing industries, not to be financially abused by corporates until they go back home in disgust, with the government then training even more foreign workers at the taxpayers' expense, for their corporate buddies to financially launder and then hang out to dry.
The same applies to Guest Workers from the Pacific Islands.
According to Bob Katter, only 6% of our manufacturing industries remain.
It's a sad fact that $52,000 jobs have been lost in the last year alone.
Not long ago, the birth rate in Australia finally reached Zero Population Growth (2.1 births per couple) for the first time in many years, with a Baby Bonus in place.
The effects of a Carbon Tax and concomitant high rates of unemployment could, however, lead to a damaging Baby Bust.
Robyn - 20, October, 2011 (9:24)
Dieter B - 20, October, 2011 (9:22)
We are satisfied with our industry super fund. We have also taken other measures to finance our retirement as it is not good to keep all the eggs in one basket.
I actually enjoy Lorikeet's contributions. Sometimes the linkages seem a bit bizarre but I think she is a lateral thinker, someone who thinks outside the box. It does not mean she is right but she does give us something to think about.
Lorikeet - 20, October, 2011 (9:12)
Last night's research revealed that 2 women from the feminist movement were instrumental in the development of the contraceptive pill. They were concerned about the death rate among women having too many children, and one who came from a rich family spent $2 million on the project. She was a biological scientist, but had to pass the final work onto a man due to misogynists discriminating against her.
The wife of the medical scientist I know opined that the contraceptive pill was not a problem in itself, but its misuse. She believed it should only be given to women who already had 3 or 4 children, which seems fairly reasonable and would have kept the Australian Age Pyramid in synch.
In a bygone era, maternal death was high on the list of killers of women, but these days, the chief cause of death in young women is suicide, very often caused by their latest lover deserting them.
My daughter-in-law (40) and I both now believe that a woman should not live with a man until there is a wedding ring on her finger and children are planned.
I believe a return of the Shotgun Wedding would sort out a lot of the serial sluts and casanovas who abound in the modern world.
Getting back to bankers and superannuation, I feel certain that banks were quick to capitalise on the bountiful supply of cash (superannuation) and high rates of credit card debt, a birth rate well below ZPG would almost guarantee.
Kay Kelly - 20, October, 2011 (8:41)
Yes, it is true that some innovative thinkers were considered a bit crazy at some time, and were subsequently shown to be correct. It is also true that the world has had many more people who were thought to be a bit crazy at some time, and the world was shown to be correct. This second group should probably have been in a hospital or should have taken some appropriate medication at the very least. I guess we will probably disagree as to which group you are more likely to belong to. And I really don't think we are intellectually inferior to you.
Kay Kelly - 20, October, 2011 (7:54)
Sure, we are off topic. This usually happens towards the end of the week. Perhaps we have all had our say on the topic by now? Perhaps, in this case, it is a bit of a 'no-brainer' as it will help to protect people from unnecessary fees? Anyway, Lorikeet usually manages to take us off on all sorts of different angles, and we happily follow! No drama!
Doug Richards - 20, October, 2011 (7:28)
It doesn't say much for National Seniors to see a thread like this.
If we want to win an argument like having more accountable financial adsvisers then we need to stay on topic at least!
Helen - 20, October, 2011 (7:00)
I have am concerned re anything that is bad for our country, especially if it is damaging. I am always suspicious when alan Jones gets on his high horse because usually he has money in there somewhere.
I guess I just don't trust him any more and he has lost all credibility now with me. It looks like I am not alone in my opinions.
When I was in Germany in 1978 it was very common then for residents to have one or no children. They were also having children later in life. This trend is now here and has really tipped the level of those actually working to pay for the ageing population. Germany's population is much larger than here and there is a bigger pool of money to choose from but also a larger amount of elderly as well.
We can't afford to have so few children being born here is Oz. There is an influx now of babies but too few to support their own parents into their old age which is not all that far behind the baby boomers.
Those having babies very young now tend to not be the workers or come from foreign new arrivals who sometimes have two wives and live on welfare. Not too far down the track I predict the same rules arriving here in oz as it is in Europe where the families are responsible for their own elderly after parents assets run out. There will be no other way when the work force drops dangerously low. I would love to know howe many immigrants are actually working now compared to years gone by and how many are dependent of us for their keep.
In the end our super will become even more important and for those without it, the house will be the next step unless the game changes...
Robyn - 19, October, 2011 (21:42)
Contraception existed before the invention of the pill in the last century.
In the century prior, women were nothing more than baby making machines for society. Many of their babies died and they stoicly tried to cope and hope that they would have 3, 4 or 5 out of 10 or more live to adulthood. I wouldn't have wanted to live back then, would you?
Dependable contraception has freed women to do more with their lives than produce baby after baby from age 18 to 50.
It's got nothing to do with banks and euthanasia conspiracies. Life has simply evolved as is its proclivity.
Bob B - 19, October, 2011 (20:43)
Lorikeet - 19, October, 2011 (20:34)
Lorikeet - 19, October, 2011 (20:31)
Thanks. If some women spent less time criticising others and more time thinking various issues through on an interactive basis, they would be better informed.
Before the contraceptive pill was introduced, the birth rate in Australia was an average of 3.4 babies per couple. Zero Population Growth was considered to be 2.3 babies per couple in 1969 and 2.1 in more recent times.
Once the contraceptive pill was brought in, the Age Pyramid quickly became unbalanced. I don't think anyone could successfully argue against that.
One of my friends is a medical scientist who developed some of the later versions of the contraceptive pill. These days he regrets his involvement in this work, due to the numerous problems controlled fertility has inflicted upon our society.
He was the first person to tell me that once Voluntary Euthanasia was legalised in The Netherlands, large numbers of people were finished off without their consent.
You made some excellent points about unions and the dastardly agendas of Labor/Greens. I think it is also important to be aware that Liberals support the corporatisation of the Australian people's assets, and have never torn up and tossed on a bonfire, international agreements which sell us out as an independent nation. John Howard even signed a couple more.
I still have more study to do in relation to exactly who financed the development of the contraceptive pill.
I hope the ladies actually read the article about Alan Jones. In this instance, his concerns are certainly valid.
Kay Kelly - 19, October, 2011 (19:11)
Really, Lorikeet, I am getting used to your weird connections between one disparate issue and another, but this one really took my breath away!!! I really wonder where you come up with all this craziness! And you pride yourself on being 'smart'!
It is obviously that time of the week when the blog has to get deleted.
WEG - 19, October, 2011 (18:29)
It seems the debate of Bill Shorten’s ‘opt in’ & other far reaching financial legislation / regulation is finished.
If younger Australians really understood the designs / ideology of the Unions (some) / Labor / Greens on our Super System then there would be cause for concern.
Whilst I’m not necessarily aligned to some of the issues Lorikeet raises, I appreciate the sincerity of her input.
It’s thought provoking at the very least, and interesting to consider another point of view.
Helen - 19, October, 2011 (17:11)
I'm sorry to say it that way.
The reason for people not having large families is because they don't want to. It has been a growing trend in Europe before it started to happen here. It's also because couples can't afford to have large families these days and has nothing to do with Super.
The wars in the early part of this century changed everything for the European Aussies as so many young men were killed who would have produced large families in those days. The whole face of Australia is different now.
Multi- Culturalism and the mix of those coming to live here now is the reason why everything has changed so much in my opinion. Years ago it was mostly European people who immigrated here and now it is everyone from all cultures. Whilst I respect all the cultures, some are not compatible with the European way of life and this will get worse as the years go on.
Your comments re Allan Jones. He is the last person I would want to listen to. What I think of him and his rantings is not for this blog.
His paid for comment program and the fact he is a personal friend of Tony Abbott says it all.
Besides even in regard to Coal-seam gas. There are people in a better position of expertise than him who can speak for the people involved in this. Most of his info is flawed anyway as he just runs of at the lip which is no help to anyone...
Lorikeet - 19, October, 2011 (14:41)
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/alan-jones-calls-for-moratorium-on-coal-seam-gas-development-and-exploration/story-e6frg6nf-1226170789522
Lorikeet - 19, October, 2011 (14:29)
As you may be aware, an aging population is often cited by the government as the reason for privatisation of the people's income producing assets and utilities i.e. a sell-off in order to provide short term funding for pensions at the expense of long term government income.
Encouraging people with few children and a double income to borrow more money and to rack up credit card debt is the reason that banks are being empowered over government and citizens. Access to compulsory superannuation has really caused the banks to boom.
As I stated previously, the only superannuation investments that now have a return above the actual rate of inflation (as opposed to the government's stated rate of inflation) require a high degree of financial risk.
Having worked backwards to 1961, it is my personal belief that bankers financed the introduction of the conception pill for their own gain, and the power it would give them over governments and people.
As I stated before, a Euthanasia Bill is hovering on the federal government's horizon.
I think it is necessary to look at many related issues when discussing any topic, if we wish to gain an understanding of what is really happening to our nation and its people.
Doug Richards - 19, October, 2011 (10:14)
I also fail to see the connection between the government plan to increase super contributions to 12% and the topic which is the usefulness or otherwise of financial advisers
Lorikeet - 19, October, 2011 (8:17)
It's interesting that you mention the older generations. When people had more children and budgetted their money very carefully, the scope for banks to rip people off was comparatively small.
Then with the introduction of the contraceptive pill into Australia in 1961, what have we seen?
We have seen both parents working outside the home (creating a glut of workers and a shortage of volunteers), the demise of compulsory unionism which has diminished workers' rights and a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, diminished working conditions and entitlements.
Banks have encouraged people to live on credit, and the introduction of compulsory superannuation in the early 1990s has had the net effect of empowering banks over both governments and citizens.
This has been further aided by the development of public/private partnerships and corporatisation of the people's income earning assets and utilities, so the government has had to look for new ways to collect sufficient revenue.
Both public and private debt in this nation have risen exponentially in the last 25 years, coinciding also with the continuing drain of manufacturing industries from our shores.
We are told that citizens are paying down debt, but I think it is more the case that people are now renting because they cannot afford to borrow money to buy a home. Many cannot even get full-time jobs, and the number and size of their bills seems to grow exponentially, along with new taxes to pay.
An upward move of superannuation contributions to 12% will be very difficult for small business people to manage, while the government continues to support large corporations and their collective agenda to drive small businesses to the wall.
Kay Kelly - 18, October, 2011 (16:27)
And yes, I have no doubt this government will try to tax superannuation more. Unfortunately this will discourage many people from trying to fund their own retirement. Especially those who look as though they won't qualify for a full pension but whose funds won't guarantee a comfortable retirement. Most financial advisers would tell them to get rid of some assets etc (overseas trip?) to make sure they qualify for the pension.
BTW I think my generation was probably the first one where the average earner could think ahead, make some sacrifices and provide for our own retirement. We had access to superannuation. My mother's generation (she is 90) would never have been able to do this.
Lorikeet - 18, October, 2011 (15:38)
Lorikeet - 18, October, 2011 (15:34)
Lorikeet - 18, October, 2011 (15:31)
Lorikeet - 18, October, 2011 (15:29)
In the meantime, I shudder to think what will happen to superannuation investments with a Carbon Tax in place, and $57.9 billion having to be paid to the third world for carbon credits.
I'm not sure how this fits in with the $17 billion being demanded by Oxfam to achieve Millennium Development Goals by 2015. It seems there are lots of global ideas that have 2015 as the completion or implementation date.
Lorikeet - 18, October, 2011 (15:26)
I guess she was saying that if a high income earning man put large amounts of money directly into superannuation, and it was only taxed as if he was earning a low income, this would be a huge advantage to him, compared with the circumstances of low income earning people.
Doug:
I moved my investment in BT (Westpac) to Hesta which is an Industry Super Fund.
I too would like more information on the NSA's current superannuation policy. I have emailed the Policy Office to get details of the policy and reasoning behind it.
I think the "Opt In" idea is meant to encourage people to put their money into Industry Funds, as was the idea of consolidating superannuation in order to reduce fees.
I think recent suggestions of applying higher land taxes to rental properties, along with the abolition of negative gearing, would force more average to wealthy people to move their money into superannuation. From there, the government could also move taxation of superannuation investments up a notch or three. All of these ideas have been floated in the media in the last 2 weeks.
Today I received a statement from Hesta, which answered a question I previously asked here. Last year there was more money to be made from a Cash investment than Fixed Interest, and this year Fixed Interest (now renamed Global Bonds!) outperformed Cash.
From looking at the tables presented, you can no longer make much mileage from a superannuation investment over a long period unless you select a High Risk option, which certainly doesn't interest me.
This year I made 5.3% on Global Bonds, and 6.0% from a Term Deposit with Westpac.
The best returns came from:
Core Pool 10.0%
Shares Plus 10.2%
Infrastructure 11.4%
Australian Shares 14.1%
Private Equity 11.9%
Kay Kelly - 18, October, 2011 (9:12)
Whilst my superannuation has an employer-funded component, about 90% of my super funds have been added from a fully taxed source! For example, the sale of investment properties and shares after the payment of CGT. The shares and investment properties were purchased using fully taxed income and a very large bank loan (which made me very nervous while I carried this financial liability). Now the super funds earnings are taxed, although the allocated pension component (mainly a return of the taxed component I put in years ago) is not taxed. I paid high taxes for over 30 years and do not expect the government to return my taxes via an aged pension. And we are the bad guys?
Doug Richards - 18, October, 2011 (7:54)
The topic here is about "Opt In" which I only read elsewhere on this website this morning is about forcing fund managers to give you the option of "Opting Out" every two years.
So in my case with Westpac (which isn't actually a super fund) I could say I don't need their ongoing financial advise (which does happen anyway) and save myself some of those fees.
Sounds fair after all two years worth of fees sounds like enough for setting up the portfolio and really they have done nothing after that.
Would it work - I just wonder How easy or hard it would be to reorganise everything to take Westpac out of the loop.
The intro to this blog probably need more info.
Lorikeet - 17, October, 2011 (22:17)
I agree with you that things are becoming much harder for the younger generations, which is the main reason we have seen demonstrations against Corporate Greed taking place throughout Europe and also here in Australia.
Robyn - 17, October, 2011 (22:11)
Robyn - 17, October, 2011 (22:01)
My own failure to capitalise on Capitalism has stemmed from not prioritising the acquisition of money. I ended up with a wonderful career which I loved, deeply connected relationships, and thanks to the era in which I was born, my own, fully owned house. I feel very fortunate.
I won't be dependent on a pension because of my inheritance but I think that those who are on pensions are entitled to them.
I think it is too easy to paint everyone with the same brush. We are all different for our own psychological and philosophical reasons and will map out a multitude of pathways toward personal fruition (or lack of) in our lives.
Overriding our personal path is the economic situation of our own era and the opportunities it presents. I think things are harder for a lot of our young people to get ahead these days.
Lorikeet - 17, October, 2011 (22:00)
A lot more is taught in hospitality and other TAFE courses than just how to pull beers. My first job was with the Queensland Education Department, where I worked in TAFE Distance Education.
I think most employers expect employees to come to work with skills in place, and are very averse to spending time teaching anybody anything.
Lorikeet - 17, October, 2011 (21:55)
Lorikeet - 17, October, 2011 (21:54)
This reminds me of another proposal I saw last week, in which someone suggested that the government could start taxing superannuation at higher rates.
Also discussed this evening was whether or not superannuation savings could be used by young couples to purchase homes, who would later ramp up their superannuation savings to compensate/catch up. This is certainly reminiscent of the Singapore Model.
I have to wonder if there may be a connection with the proposal (rejected by our government) to move the Australian ASX to Singapore.
I think we need to remember that in order for superannuation funds to maximise profits for their members, others have to be ripped off.
One of the reasons our government is examining new ways to bump up their taxation revenue, is that their public/private partnerships and corporatisation processes are empowering corporates to collect the revenue to which the government once had access, and used to pay pensions and allowances.
In other words, the government uses taxpayer funding to set up infrastructure, and then cuts the taxpayers' collective throats by allowing others to collect the associated revenue. Then the government is forced to rip everyone off again in order to remain afloat financially.
"Guest" workers have been coming to Australia from the Pacific Islands for several years. While it may sound as if our government is doing them a favour, they are actually providing Slave Labor for foreign corporations working on the land.
The National Farmers' Federation won the right NOT to pay penalty rates in 2009.
Robyn - 17, October, 2011 (21:48)
Your comment:
"Labor has definitely got our savings in its sights"
Are you a DLPer too WEG?
I do like the sound of your dog. Oh to be one! - all this stuff just wouldn't matter, would it? Love is all there is (to a dog).
From past comment ETS has made I think he probably knows more about Singapore than most others.
To Helen and Kay,
I've always been a hard worker but a poor director of self re capitalising on capitalism. Even had a stint at scrubbing men's urinals once - nice work! I was 18 at the time and working my way around Australia. Your children/grandson sound very well directed - good on them!
I do agree that children these days are not encouraged to develop independence during their teen years (thanks to youth allowance and keeping them at school during years when some would be better off finding their way in the world). Not only are they kept at school to age 18 but then they have to do courses to qualify for jobs that did not need courses in the past. One of my many "youthful" jobs was barmaiding. Everything there was to know was learned on the first night on the job. Now one has to do a hospitality course to be a barmaid or a waitress (another one of my jobs learned easily on the first day).
Since one of the main tasks of teenagehood is to develop independence in the world, I don't think encouragement to keep them all at school to age 18 has been a positive thing in so far as helping them to develop personal responsibility for making their way in the world. It has helped them to postpone developing a sense of self moving into adulthood.
While your children and grandson have traversed a successful path, many flounder because they are dealing with massive self doubt for various reasons.
ETS - 17, October, 2011 (19:53)
It is like a lot of things under the command-and-control social approach of the PAP. You get your share as long as you don't rock the boat. Even in the 1980s dissidents could have problems getting access to their funds. I don't know if it is still that strict and the Government has certainly had problems sice the GFC, along with rising unemployment and the increase in "guest" workers. Individuals historically have had little influence on where/how funds have been invested. Fortunately there have been very few cases of corruption (that we are aware of at least).
Overall, the Singapore model has historically provided a sound social welfare net for most people. It would probably not work so well in Australia where we like to have more individual responsibility/control over our assets and where no government will ever have the level of command over society that the Singapore Government has.
The big question is how long can it continue in Singapore.
WEG - 17, October, 2011 (18:39)
The Singapore model works well for Singaporeans' as everyone conforms to the centralist theme. No one needs to worry about investment returns, or Financial Advisers.
Whilst the political structure in Australia will not allow a government to mandate such a change (only exception to date – carbon tax legislation), it does not prevent the Unions / Labor to push similar ideology every time they’re in power (MySuper and Union controlled Industry Funds etc). Wayne Swan said recently – Aust. does not need another sovereign fund, as we have the $1.4 Trillion superannuation savings. Labor has definitely got our savings in their sights, but I can’t ever see it being aligned to that of Singapore’s system.
Kay Kelly - 17, October, 2011 (17:40)
I doubt there was any legislation 50 to 60 years ago requiring baby sitters to be a minimum age. In those non-Nanny-State days it was left to the judgement of the parents.
Lorikeet - 17, October, 2011 (17:32)
Lorikeet - 17, October, 2011 (17:29)
Kay Kelly - 17, October, 2011 (17:27)
Lorikeet - 17, October, 2011 (17:25)
At the moment, I am looking at ways to improve Education in Australia.
I was making 3 main points about high school students working, one of which is applicable to employment of the over-50s.
1. The money has only improved to a minuscule degree over a long period of time (Slave Labor).
2. Adult workers are being deprived of full-time jobs.
3. The academic achievement of MODERN teenagers has fallen, and too much work has been cited by teachers as cutting into study time.
I don't expect other people to share the same broad based understanding of what is likely to happen in our society, if they haven't done the required study or had access to the same contacts within the parliament.
I have a 19-year-old son and 2 sons aged 36 and 37. When the older sons were being educated, the status quo was very different. Queensland had the best education system in Australia, and teenagers weren't burning the candle at both ends.
I have a brother with a portfolio of houses, which he considers to be his "superannuation investment".
The government is now looking at ways to get their hands on rental properties by:
1. increasing land taxes
2. doing away with negative gearing.
Facts that are being advertised on the TV are not negative responses made by me.
For the person who cannot connect the dots, the link between faltering Age Pyramids and Euthanasia legislation is as thick as a shipping cable.
It is absolutely essential for this nation to keep up a robust Immigration Program. Refugees are quite a different kettle of fish from immigrants, but even they could be given jobs if most of the work wasn't moving offshore.
WEG - 17, October, 2011 (17:02)
This model certainly does not need any ‘opt in’ process or any ‘financial advisers’ as it’s centrally control by the Singapore National government. I’m sure this model works well in Singapore, but did you see the compulsory contribution rates – combined 32%, as compared with 9% in Aust. In Singapore it’s used as a Sovereign fund, and lent back to the people for housing (a unit in the many hundred 20 story buildings), and also some universal health system (my understanding). Individuals have nil say in how these funds are used.
Imagine all those SMSF, Corp, Retail and Public sector funds in Aust. surrendering control of their savings to our Government!!
Whilst Union based Industry funds have a small percentage control of Aust. Super $1.4 trillion, I can’t see our political system achieving the same result here, but they certainly can grow with ‘MySuper’ initiative and achieve a partial ‘nationalisation’ of our funds, or even by legislating that Superannuation funds provide certain % of monies to, say Government bonds for infrastructure build.
I’m not necessarily worried by this, but that’s the Labor way / ideology.
Helen - 17, October, 2011 (16:25)
Now it's Euthanasia! I thought I was a long way off topic before. Perhaps we should Euthanase incompetent "financial Planners". I said that just to bring us back to our topic -
Good evening all!...
Helen - 17, October, 2011 (13:54)
There seems to be many who are still child like in their thirties today (and even living at home at this time). It is my opinion that parents don't do their children a favour keeping them both endulged and teaching that they are there to be spoilt etc. It doesn't hurt them either to play a part in their own education. With our younger son, we paid for his Uni fees and he paid for the rest. He even saved for a trip overseas after he finished school before he started Uni.
Many just can't cope with the stresses of living because they have never been taught how. Today's children will also be parents one day and the world out there is tough. It didn't hurt us learning that lesson in life did it and learning that one had to work to get somewhere and to pay our own way etc. It used to be an Australian ethic that has somehow got lost along the way.
Wellfare should only be for those who are truly eligible in my opinion and not for those who think it is their right so they can enjoy hobbies at the countries expense and live in permanent retirement.
I have moved somewhat from "Financial Planners" eh!...
Kay Kelly - 17, October, 2011 (12:19)
I was most amused a few years back when my eldest grandson took a job at the local Maccas while he was in high school. Previous to that it was impossible to get him to do anything around the house!!!! He demonstrated a great work ethic at Maccas, excelled, loved it and was promoted to Trainer and occasional Manager - all before he turned 18! He did well in his HSC, is at uni now doing Business Management and on a cadetship - meaning he works 4.5 days and studies part-time. He also fixes old computers and resells them on eBay - has earned over $20,000 on that alone. He has saved around $50,000 and is looking at buying a rental property. And he turns 20 this year!
And no, I don't have a problem with corporations - I hold shares in many companies, as does my Super Fund. So it benefits me that they do well! In fact it benefits everyone - even if a company is owned/partly owned by overseas people. And it benefits everyone to have companies all around the world doing well. Our superannuation depends on it. Also the money goes round and round - helps to employ more people, produces more tax, and hence feeds into the provision of government services.
Helen - 17, October, 2011 (11:29)
There are also very hard working people in the younger group as well. These people get on in life and have the strength of character to weather the storms, where the others just exist (often on welfare).
I know which group I prefer! I would hate to see our country with more of the "freeloaders" than the workers, so work ethics are a very important part of bringing children up in my opinion.
What do the other bloggers think? I am sure that most have had to really work hard for everthing that they have had both as an adult and as a child. Why should we think that it should be different today and why be resentful of any kind of business that brings money into our country whether it be small or large. All are important and have a place.
I don't look on business as being conspirators either. Big business more often than not have shareholders who are often retirees just lioke us...
Helen - 17, October, 2011 (10:43)
My children both worked and also took very high levels whilst at H/S. Both did very well are very successful today in their various fields. One in particular has five houses that he has restored and now rents out in the market. He says that this is HIS retirement for later. He was working from the age of ten on local properties. He also coached maths to younger students when in H/S and washed dishes in restaurants and even ran a local bottle shop when he turned eighteen (and did his schoolwork)
I think highly motivated children will always do well. Our other son is a Warrant Officer in the A/Force and also worked when younger, usually with us. He reached the rank of Flt Sgt in the Air Training Corp while in H/S and was in charge of taking boys his own age on training missions. What I am saying is that the work principle instilled early (often put in place by hard working parents) has wonderful dividends as long as it is not forced.
Too many young people just have everything thrown at them and don't know how to manage even in their thirties.
I'm sure many others on our blog were exactly the same.
I do agree that infrastructure is at the bottom of the peg and has been neglected for the last fifty years. No votes here!
The current government is taking some action toward this end (not popular) but in the end it will benefit the future generation.
I hope some-one has the courage to start moving water across Australia and capturing all the wasted water from up north that is running into the sea.
Will anyone of this generation support such a costly excercise (I hope so)
All changes are hard on many of us, but are necessary even if in the end we will not be here to see them finished.
Too many people are on welfare and many are from O/S and are uneducated and unskilled. We also have more crime now than for many years for this reason in my opinion...
Kay Kelly - 17, October, 2011 (9:58)
Immigration is great as long as the immigrants actually work and pay tax! Unfortunately, a large proportion of refugee immigrants are on the dole, plus getting all the other benefits and allowances. That is a drain on the economy - not a boost. It is unfortunately true that Australia lacks the number of skilled workers who are prepared to do the work that companies need to be done. It also applies in the academic field - it is almost impossible to get an Australian graduate to take up a doctoral or post-doctoral fellowship at a university. Inevitably an overseas student must be brought in.
Lorikeet - 17, October, 2011 (9:38)
Part of the reason for the incompetence is the disgruntlement of Westpac workers which must affect their performance on the job. They are now forced to work on Saturday mornings, while the bank keeps shedding jobs.
I feel we must look at the needs of the society on a holistic basis. More greed on the part of corporates will rip too much money out of the younger generations, who are already on the warpath. I think it is also important to consider that a Euthanasia Bill is waiting in the wings of our federal parliament. Other countries which have passed laws for Voluntary Euthanasia are now finishing off large numbers of people without their consent.
I think there is already conflict between Centrelink Pensioners and superannuants, especially in relation to profits from Aged Care, which should never have been moved into the "for profit" sector, to be parasitized by The Macquarie Bank to order to build their empire.
Kay:
The Age Pyramid can easily be restored to a much healthier condition through a robust immigration program, which doesn't alienate new Australians with inferior wages.
I'm sure there are plenty of conspiracy theories floating around, but my opinions are based on international agreements that have been signed and what has actually been going on, both in Australia and the world.
A rally against Corporate Greed was held in Sydney at the weekend.
The government must find a balance, look after its own people, and keep some fairly tight shackles on the banking industry. The resurrection of a government owned bank would help in this regard, as would the restoration of our manufacturing industries and more assistance to small business.
Doug Richards - 17, October, 2011 (8:50)
I have complained to their online complains department on two occasions and you certainly do get a response. I even got a new financial adviser. Problem is the basic culture of the organisation means that nothing changes.
I really don't know how a government can legislate against greed and incompetence. Plus to some extent we need the greed and incompetence to continue because too many of us have a lot of money riding on it.
Kay Kelly - 17, October, 2011 (8:24)
Line 1 should be "that does NOT preclude..."
Sorry - why is there always a typo!
Kay Kelly - 17, October, 2011 (8:00)
Lorikeet - it worries me that you see global conspiracy everywhere! What I see more of is just plain incompetence.
Lorikeet - 17, October, 2011 (7:38)
http://icpr.itam.mx/papers/ShouldAustraliaCopySingapore.pdf
http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/blt/jat/2000-issue5-lang.pdf
Lorikeet - 17, October, 2011 (7:30)
I think keeping up a robust level of Immigration will help to solve the imbalance in the Australian Age Pyramid. It will not be helped by corporates underpaying foreign workers, so that they cannot afford to pay huge bills for corporatised utilities. A large percentage are returning to their homeland in disgust.
The government has fallen down on infrastructure provision for more than 20 years. The situation is fairly desperate in housing, health and education. I believe this is being done deliberately to allow corporates to take over everything and then inflict daylight robbery on the masses, mostly for their own benefit.
I don't think we are too far away from a situation where the government will find ways to grab rental properties and corporatise the rental market. I have seen some pointers in this direction on TV only a week ago.
Getting more people working is an excellent approach, but this will be difficult with a Carbon Tax in place and the continuing movement of work offshore to Asia. The last I heard was that 94% of our manufacturing industries have now gone to Asia.
There are also serious concerns about our children's lack of achievement in schools, which is partly driven by part-time work for high school students at Slave Labor Rates, which have increased very little for a very long time.
Keeping the kids at school will make more full-time work available for every age group, particularly those in the 50+ age group. With full-time work comes better working conditions.
We are also now a net importer of fruit, vegetables, seafood and pork, which is driving our own farmers and graziers to the wall, while empowering corporates, most of whom are not Australian.
Lorikeet - 17, October, 2011 (7:15)
In times of global financial uncertainty, I think moving money into cash is a superior option. It is better than losing another 20-40% of our money, especially for those in the older age groups.
Overnight in the news, we have seen sometimes violent demonstrations occurring in London, Rome, Madrid and other European capitals. The protests were over the high degree of corporate greed, which I think was very well justified.
I will see if I can obtain further details of the Singapore model for Superannuation.
Helen - 17, October, 2011 (7:11)
I don't see this at the reason for Super at all. In future years there will be fewer (or even no pensions) for the elderly just like in other countries of the world, unless we can get a higher percentage of the work force earning out there instead of the reverse.
Our dependency on wellfare here has become much higher than those who are actually earning and is getting worse as more and more people age. Also the number of unskilled refugees coming is so great now from what I can see and I feel this will make a huge hole in the pension and housing schemes for any governments of the future.
In European countries, families have to pay for their elderly when the resourses of the parent have been exhausted. This is the reason why so many keep their parents at home to preserve their inheritence etc.
The more affluent, bring in people from some of the poorer European nations on 6 month visas to be carers. After six months they return to their countries and another Carer is brought in. The "Carers" earn good money compared with their home country and are looked after very well.
For others though being cared for at home, is not always always that wonderful. Only when there are no family members available are nursing home fees paid for by government.
In my opinion having a Super fund for workers is a much better option for the individual during one's working life. In Europe in the old days, few woman in particular worked and there seems to be many more widows than widowers over there at the moment and I'm not sure Super was available going back to the 40s etc. They also have a much larger population both working and aging. We have the latter far outsripping the other...
WEG - 16, October, 2011 (16:46)
Bucephalas - 16, October, 2011 (13:28)
Helen - 16, October, 2011 (11:29)
Tom, if your planner didn't show you "up front" then he/she didn't do the right thing. We were given our Portfolios, they were explained to us both. Our planner went over all our expenses re living and looked at what we had put away.
We went over all this carefully and then he came back and we either liked it or asked for slight changes before we signed. This is the procedure that should be followed and if yours didn't do this and you are not happy (you can change).
It is really important to have a planner with good backing behind them. Those who contract to insurance co's in particular, have the backing of banks and they must do the right thing or they lose their contract to represent.
My husband is in a conservative fund and I am in a medium conservative (which is a little more creative).
Putting money into cash accounts doesn't earn such a lot but it is safer at the moment. When everything settles down and looks better we will move our money back to the previous fund management plan.
At least we are not losing and are still getting an income form our money each fortnight, topped up by any pension entitlements we are entitled to.
Our planner visits us twice a year and I talk to him many times throughout the year if I hear something and need to know an answer. His fees are very reasonable and well earned in my opinion.
It works well for us...
WEG - 16, October, 2011 (6:21)
I meant Corp Sector, rather than Retail in my previous comment (My superannuation resides in the Corp sector).
To clarify my point further:
APRA published results for sector performance over the last 14 years recently, and provided the following benchmarks.
Public Sector 6.30%: Corp Sector 5.84%: Industry Sector 5.35%: Retail 3.66%
Average 5.01%: Cash rate 4.23% (inflation 2.53%):
Retail Sector is usually aggregated with old legacy products, pensions etc, that brings the average rate down due to less aggressive investment strategy. Performances will vary greatly between funds obviously.
Interestingly, many Fund Managers in the Retail Sector do have Industry Fund equivalents, and these compare favourably with those ‘Union controlled’ Industry fund sector, despite the press ramblings we hear from the ISN spokesperson.
Lorikeet - 15, October, 2011 (22:26)
Take a look at this link, and then substitute the word "money" for the word "meat":
http://www.nationalseniors.com.au/page/Membership/Blog/Opt_in/
Then take a look at "oligopoly".
I'd suggest also reading the other definitions listed there, and a lot will be revealed about many things that are happening in the world, including those involving the Woolworths/Coles duopoly and recent price wars on milk, bread, chicken etc.
There is a link between what is happening with superannuation, immigration, trade, wealth redistribution and various international agreements signed (mostly by Labor) since the end of World War II. These are controlled and administered by the United Nations.
I think it's also important to bear in mind that we have had no Australian owned bank, since Bob Hawke privatised the Commonwealth Bank in 1985.
Some people think that a time is coming when our money won't be worth the plastic/paper it's printed on. According to tonight's news, housing values are still falling all over Australia.
Bucephalas - 15, October, 2011 (22:08)
I wonder if WEG is right about Retail super funds getting better returns than Industry. Before the GFC date showed that the Industry funds overall were well ahead. Industry funds also charge lower fees which mean that they can make smaller returns for the same amount as retail funds. I have seen no recent data comparing the returns for the two types of funds and imagine that they have a spread of returns. It depends on whether you pick the fund with best returns and this would include both retail and industry funds.
I thank Lorikeet for a new word to my vocabulary in Oligopsony [from Greek oligoi= few and opsonia = purchase] and which according to Google means having only a few buyers and many sellers {unlike Oligopoly which means having few sellers}. Coles and Woolworths are a good example in Australia. However even if the many Industry funds drove retail funds out of business [and that seems most improbable, Retail funds controlling more at present that Industry funds] there are too many funds to be an oligopsony and it could be disputed whether they are “Buyers” rather than “sellers”. I also fail to understand the reference to the UN taking over super as it is controlled by Australian legislation.
WEG - 15, October, 2011 (18:49)
Yes, Labor tend towards monopolies – best and latest example, NBN (This project will be a mammoth and costly disaster, and will not succeed). In the early 1970’s Labor attempted to nationalise superannuation (remember the huge demonstrations back then), and relented and then introduced 1989 Industry Supn 3%, now 9% (Bernie Fraser and Garry Weaven ex ACTU). The intro of national medical bank /care is another one. I do not necessarily disagree with all these intrusions by Govn. but someone needs to keep the bastards honest with COMPETITION.
WEG - 15, October, 2011 (18:23)
Lorikeet - 15, October, 2011 (18:07)
I'm fairly certain an oligopsony is being set up. This is where the United Nations will end up controlling all of the superannuation and also deciding who gets it, if they get it, and when.
This is part of the worldwide redistribution of wealth. I don't have much superannuation, but I think I made a mistake in moving it into an Industry Super Fund, after they were heavily advertised as having lower fees. I cannot see that they are any better than the previous investment with BT (Westpac).
As for My Woolies, I think this is about rationing both food and financial resources.
I have emailed the NSA policy office to find out more about one of the petitions they would like us to sign ... Superannuation. I signed the other 3 already.
Lorikeet - 15, October, 2011 (17:58)
Does it concern anyone that the government could be trying to set up an oligopsony, by pushing us all into Industry Super Funds?
WEG - 15, October, 2011 (17:55)
I note an article in yesterday’s paper, the Maritime Union (Mick Doleman) want’s the Govn to ‘pressure’ superannuation funds to invest in more Aust. infrastructure projects. A commendable idea, as there is a $86 billion shortfall in funding requirement. However, the return is 4% – less than cash investment. Superannuation is seen by our Labor political leaders as a sovereign wealth fund, ripe for the raiding.
WEG - 15, October, 2011 (17:36)
Interestingly, Australians now have $1.68 trillion invested in cash, which is some 5% points greater than prior GFC. Obviously people are adverse to other forms of investments mainly due to the pain felt by the GFC and the 30 – 40% devaluation of their assets / superannuation.
Tom Lawrence - 15, October, 2011 (13:49)
I was interested to read Helen's comment 'The Portfolio is usually presented and customers are given a couple of weeks to decide if the scheme is appropriate for them and to make changes if needed. This is the way it should be.'
We were never given a portfolie prior to investing in a financial strategy proposed by our advisor. We were given a Statement of Advice after everything was finalised and told 'this is just to show you where we've invested your money.
It's about time the financial industry decided once and for all what they should and shouldn't do. As a client we had no idea what a SOA was or that we were to receive one.
We are elderly and the elderly are easily ripped off by these people. They know that we don't understand and take advantage of our lack of knowledge.
I wouldn't trust any of them and like the post which states basically 'educate yourself and do your own investing' You can't lose anymore that a financial planner can, they have to make money from your money before you begin to show any return.
helen - 15, October, 2011 (11:18)
We found Rostered days off before and after public holidays &
easter etc much more difficult because we had to earn the money that people were paid. We also had to pay holiday pay (with loading and bonuses) and as the building industry closed down at Xmas and re-opened at the end of January, this was a very expensive exercise for us.
My husband used to take on work over the holidays and work week-ends (and I did extra work) just to see us through. We could only afford to take short holidays because even one week's holidays meant two weeks work to have it off. We would take pay for the week off (for our holiday) and would have to work a week before we could draw again. We didn't take loading, rostered days off etc etc. The only good part although difficult sometimes was the money put away for our retirement.
I don't see a problem with the % changing to keep up with the times.
It is far more comfortable to be an employee. I am glad small businesses will be compensated by the government to help with the changeover to new technology. We had no compensation or help from either party when we were in business, not even when my husband really took sick. It took two years to sort ourselves out with no help from any of them. The computer age came and we just had to learn (again no help from anyone). It was a most difficult time closing down and another reason why I only support those whom I believe in.
When all was finalised a huge weight left my shoulders because I had to do it all and still kept everything going on the home front and as a Carer. I don't miss any of it!...
Lorikeet - 15, October, 2011 (9:59)
I have a question for you, if you would not mind answering it, wearing your small business "hat".
Do you think that increasing contributions to superannuation from 9% to 12% over 6 years will place a serious burden on small business people, and make them more likely to go broke?
Jim - 15, October, 2011 (8:22)
In the end, I joined an Investment Group, learning from like-minded individuals and Guest Speakers (many of them Public Company executives) how do do this myself; and never regretted it. It was the commissions, and then the 'trailing' commissions that put me off financial planners; also colleagues of mine, who have lost heavily from managed funds,through financial advice.
It has been a most satisfying, and learning, experience, doing it myself. There is no "quick fix" to this business.
Helen - 15, October, 2011 (7:37)
When our first advisor retired some years back and the one we have now took over, he went through all the same "up-front" procedures as the one before him. If your advisor doesn't do this, then don't sign up. They are supposed to inform from the beginning of your rights and fees & charges etc before advising anyone.
We also had a portfolio put together which fitted our way of life and what we wanted together with any pension entitlements.
Our advisor does not charge any extra above the entitlement fee (and this is not an unreasonable charge), for anything that is done for us for managing anything that we want throughout the year. Perhaps a withdrawl or change (as was done through economic circumstances). to protect our money.
If you are not 100% happy one should not sign anything. The Portfolio is usually presented and customers are given a couple of weeks to decide if the scheme is appropriate for them and to make changes if needed. This is the way it should be.
We are very happy with our advisor as mentioned before. We also don't have buckets put a way as we educated our boys and had to pay 100% of our Super ourselves. We were also forced seven years into my husband's illness to retire our company. We could have (especially me) worked for quite a few more years. Still, all is well and with good management, things are good. Without good management, just living on a pension would mean scraping through from day to day.
I know too that there are many (particularly woman), who have to live like this and it must be very hard. We have our own home and this is truly a blessing (although hard to get in our younger life). I know there are many worse off than we are...
denis arcand - 14, October, 2011 (21:04)
Robyn - 14, October, 2011 (20:01)
Great comment.
I have little in Super but I have an inheritance which I have kept in the bank. My financial adviser, in my super scheme, has advised I keep my money in the bank. He has suggested that I could put $100,000 into a balanced account for the future but I am holding off at the moment because things are not looking good.
The increase in the tax threshold as a result of the carbon tax will mean I can keep my money in the bank tax free.
I trust my financial adviser because he is so honest and I feel that he thinks of me and my situation before any commission he might get if I invest my money with his scheme.
I can go to my adviser at any time (more than twice a year) if I want to discuss anything, even though I only have about $12,000 in Super. He understands my total situation and has been honest enough to say I am better off keeping most of my money in the bank.
My accountant has also advised keeping my money in the bank.
My financial adviser connected with my Super has never charged me anything for advice. The fees for my tiny super and my husbands large super with the same super scheme have always been very low. I am amazed to hear of the large fees being charged to some others.
Arabella - 14, October, 2011 (17:29)
Lorikeet - 14, October, 2011 (17:02)
I think the concerns you expressed regarding the involvement of unions in the government's proposal are very well founded. Can you please give us a list of companies you think are reputable?
I am quite worried that the government wants to concentrate superannuation holdings in very large companies, thereby cutting out competition. It will also create a very large collective pool from which the United Nations can extract cash and give it out to third world nations.
Pammy:
I'm so glad you did those wonderful things to help your mother-in-law. Part of the reason there are now major stuff ups at the Westpac Bank is that they keep moving their staff (including managers) from branch to branch, and cutting staffing numbers. A couple of weeks ago, they cut another 400 jobs.
I have found the service to be better since I told the local branch manager that I belonged to a political party that was very concerned about non-Australian owned banks ripping us all off!
I was also really annoyed to see the CEO of QANTAS blaming unionists for the problems his company created by sending work offshore.
Yesterday I also heard that a former CEO of Woolworths is now CEO of the Reserve Bank!
Marlene Thompson - 14, October, 2011 (15:27)
Helen - 14, October, 2011 (13:24)
When things got tuff O/S, he rang us and moved our money into a cash a/c for protection until everything settles down again.
We also see him twice a year and he travels a long way to come. I can also phone him and talk to him about anything at no extra charge.
His business is his own, so he works much harder and looking after AMP customers, we know our money is safe. Some private advisors with no bank to back them up could be a problem if anything goes wrong. I would never use anyone without decent backing and protection for something so important.
We had to pay 100% of our super ourselves as we were a small family business (we also paid for our employees). I only received a small A/M for my nursing as I did this on a casual basis to earn a bit more as I also worked for our company.
I have to say the way we live today would not have been achieved without the help of our Financial Advisor. My Mother would not have one and so she lived a very meager life with just a bank A/C at very low interest and on a pension. We are still able to live well and get many valuable benefits that we need in the help and treatment of my husband's Parkinson's. His medication for a start would cost us a furtune...
pammy - 14, October, 2011 (13:02)
John - 14, October, 2011 (11:48)
My wife received an inheritance from overseas a few years ago and our adviser, together with our tax accountant, did a first class job in setting up an account-based pension for her at minimum cost, and she paid very little tax.
The picture has changed recently, with fees going up to over 1.9%- top of the range! The returns from the funds they manage can only be described as moderate.
We have also been asked to sign a complicated "service agreement", which I refuse to do.
The question is, is it worth setting up a SMSF, with all the hassle, exit fees, entry fees and on-going costs?
Incidentally, I agree with the comments about Westpac. I saw one of their advisers many years ago, who advised us to take out a $150,000 loan!.Having spent all our lives paying off a mortgage and getting out of debt, I declined.
Bob B - 14, October, 2011 (11:34)
For those who want to pay no fees, would you run a business for nothing? I think not; the key is to decide what that service is worth and if its reasonable. Shopping around is a smart thing to do here and the 'talk to friends' comment earlier is sound advice.
WEG - 14, October, 2011 (11:05)
Greater control of the Finance Sector is a main pillar / ideology of the this Fed Government in order to promote the invested interest they have in the Union dominated Industry Superannuation and the Banking sectors.
The Fed Government (Bill Shorten) proposed ‘opt-in’ legislation requires a Financial Adviser to send a renewal (opt-in) notice every two years to new clients, as well as an annual fee disclosure statement.
My experience is that most of the reputable Fund Management organisations have followed this process for many years now, and indeed exceed the opt in measures by (for example) providing up to 2 meetings with their clients each year, and rebates on fees etc..
A more disturbing issue that Government need to address in my view, is the Cooper's Superannuation report finding, that the Compliance / Governance issues associated with Director / Board / Union Official ‘cross organisational’ appointments. This is a major weakness in this Superannuation sector and was highlighted with the advent of the HSU scandal.
JoeS - 14, October, 2011 (10:13)
. total fees on a moderate initial sum were over $100000 with almost no advice from the financial adviser
. recent suggestions to rearrange my allocated pension and super fund cost $500 and $13000 in the first year if proceeded with
. the percentage method of charging fees and commissions is unfair especially for larger funds. Pay for service is better.
. I have concluded that my money would be better in alternative investments rather than super, suchas shares or fixed deposits.
.
Jane turnbull - 14, October, 2011 (9:22)
Jane turnbull - 14, October, 2011 (9:18)
They are highly competent, and have helped me manage my moderate retirement funds so as to come through the GFC relatively unscathed.
Use a respectable company offering reasonable returns, and don't over-invest in any madcap get rich quick schemes, live within your means and do a bit of your own research, and you will be fine.
I will definitely be opting in, as my expertise lay in areas other then financial management, car mechanics, plumbing, hair dressing, electrical work, building, etc..... I am more than happy to use the experts when I need these services.
Una Robinson - 14, October, 2011 (8:40)
In 2006 my Financial advisor changed companies, I followed as was uninformed on investing etc. At that time, I had income from two allocated pensions and a Commonwealth super on which to live. The two allocated Pensions were then all paid out, re managed and it tunred out that I was actually being paid with my very own funds each fortnight. A huge loss of money, my hard earned life savings occured in this process by way of bank fees, advisor fees etc, it was disgusting.
I am one of over 3000 former STORM Investors who lost the lot, including practically all means to exist. During the meltdown in 2008, all shares selling was frozen, all advisors were banned from talking or advising their clients by ASIC, I could get no help from those I paid to do so.
I blame my advisor who insisted and basically bullied me to action his advice. They took away all income earning assets and paid some of my own funds back to live on each fortnight.
My means to exist are extremely low and basic activities and travel for family visits and holidays in my retirement have had to be completely curtailed.
ALL THIS WITH THANKS TO MY NOW FORMER FINANCIAL ADVISOR
Lorikeet - 14, October, 2011 (8:37)
I received a Cellarmasters offer through the NSA for a case of 10 bottles of wine + 4 bottle bonus for $99. This also included a cooler bag (2 bottle capacity), but didn't include the delivery fee.
I didn't think it seemed too expensive. What do you say?
Bill - 14, October, 2011 (8:18)
We pay to join National Seniors, and we have the option now to stop paying if we dont think we get value and leave.
There are a vast majority of Financial Advisers in the Industry who are professional and provide quality advice. How do I know that? After being in the Fianncial Planning business for over 40 years and recently retired. I have worked in senior positions in Insurance Companies, banks and Financial Planning dealerships.You may say I am biased, but I am not. As in any industry, there are people who probably should not be there. Does the recent insulation batt fiasco sound familiar?
Any existing Fiancial Planning client has the right now to approach the product provider and turn off any commission that is being paid. You dont need any organistaions like "Your share" or any similar arganistion to do that for you.
However, just remember that you then dont have anyone to approach to get advice about your financial situation.
Recently I was talking to a financial adviser about a client of his. He had agreed with her that he would keep in contact each year and update their situation. He was only paid a "trail commission" for this and it was paid to him from the clients investment and insurance programme. He had worked out that to provide advice and to send an invoice for the client to pay was going to cost the client more, so they both agreed that the "commission" payment was the way to go. When he made contact with the client the client told him that she had just called the Insurance company to cancel their Insurance because she was now sick and could not afford the premium. When asked about the circummstances she told him that she had been diagnosed with Motor neurome disease. The adviser quickly got a letter from the client to cancel the request fro the cancellation. Why did he do that i hear you ask? Well the lady had a claim for $400K on her Trauma policy. When he told her that she was obviously over the moon as suddenly she had access to cash at this very difficult time. If she did not have an adviser because she "opted out" there would have been no claim paid, as she would not have had an adviser.
So what has this got to do with commissions. well the story above clearly shows what an adviser is supposed to do. If you are not getting service, find someone suitably qualified and recommended (prefarably by a friend). When a plan is being presented to a client, there are pages of diclosures about commissions in the Statement of advice(SOA). I would recommend you go and read them and see what they say. Ask your adviser about what he (or she) will be doing for you for these fees, whether they be commissions or separate fees.
See we dont get anything for free in this world, everyone has to pay.
I cant recall national Seniors asking my view on Opt In, but they have just gone ahead and published their view.
I accept that because I am a member of national seniors. I would love to be part of the discussion on this topic going forward, just to give the benefit of 40 plus years of experience.
Doug Richards - 14, October, 2011 (7:55)
We make an appointment to see our financial adviser a fortnight out and he rings and cancels the day before. He never returns my phone calls. Promised emails and letters with investment information never arrive.
I have complained on a couple of occasions to their complaints department. I was even assigned a new financial adviser, but nothing ever changes. Complaining is just futile.
I put it down to basic incompetence. These financial advisers just don't know enough to provide investment information about their products. They are good at selling their products to the unwary and that's about it.
What to know how the GFC happened - look no further!
Lorikeet - 14, October, 2011 (7:40)
I think you are a very astute person. The scaremongering plays straight into the Green Pagan Religion and the collection of a Carbon Tax in Australia.
Here in Brisbane, we had a fairly dry Winter. I think the Brisbane City and Moreton Bay Regional Councils burnt off large areas of public land.
At the last NSA branch meeting in my area, we had a talk delivered by the National Heart Foundation. It seems to me that they now expect us to have a cholesterol level lower than that of Nathan Pritikin.
We were shown a slide on which meats were listed as being bad for our hearts, without any mention of the fact it is okay to get part of our protein requirements from lean beef. I believe this is another attempt to wipe out the livestock industries.
Bob B is correct about banks.
I'd like to see the NSA and all of its members push to get rid of the Pay Wave and Tap-n-Go cards. We also need to reinforce the fact that receipts protect our consumer rights and that if they are not collected, we can have trouble managing our finances and getting a refund on imperfect goods.
I think it should also be compulsory for ATM machines to generate a receipt without asking the customer if he/she wants one first.
I have already taken this up with Senator Madigan, and will also be addressing it with our federal MP here in Queensland.
Please ask all of your friends and family to use only fully staffed checkouts (not self-service) and to ensure they receive a receipt for every financial transaction they make.
Lorikeet - 14, October, 2011 (7:28)
There is an organisation called "Your Share", which first came to my attention during a prime time current affairs program 2 or 3 years ago. They claim to be able to get back any commissions etc you have paid on insurance policies, superannuation etc.
I strongly suspect this group is actually part of the International Monetary Fund, because at around the same time as I saw "Your Share" on TV, I saw another segment which said the IMF was collecting moneys in Australia.
To my knowledge, "Your Share" keeps 50% of the money they get back on your commissions.
Old woman of the north - 14, October, 2011 (6:17)
Re the bush fire season and summer storms - If people had done some work on reducing fuel loads during the winter when a cool burn could have been used to make fire breaks it would have been more sensible.
Funny how many people seem to have forgotten that summers can be WET and are now all gloom and doom about a natural phenomenon that can be prepared for and insured against if necessary.
Bob B - 13, October, 2011 (21:41)
I agree that banks have only themselves in mind. Good friends went to the bank with a substantial amount to invest despite advice to the contrary. I am appalled at the poor performance and abismal treatment they get. he bank has their money and that's all that matters to them.
Lorikeet - 13, October, 2011 (21:21)
You could tell us what you think of Financial Advisers, instead of trying to continue the abuse.
IanMelb - 13, October, 2011 (19:13)
della churchill - 13, October, 2011 (16:43)
Lorikeet - 13, October, 2011 (15:38)
He said I should forego a Centrelink Parenting Payment at the single rate, and instead opt to live off an annuity. At the time I was only 41 years old, and my share certainly didn't amount to millions.
I lodged a complaint with the bank about this moneygrubbing dirtbag and put my money in a Term Deposit.
Eventually the bank received so many complaints that they moved the Financial Adviser to a branch a significant distance away.
My general opinion is that they only wish to line their own pockets, and do not care who ends up completely destitute in the process.
Bob B - 13, October, 2011 (15:05)
When he retired his company that had substantially grown was sold but the service delined a little. This led to another takeover to the current company and I am very happy with them. They are open and honest and very informative. Results are not at the top of the performance band but are not far behind.
I have no complaints but I have been the master of my destiny through this period - they are simply advisors and implementers of my wishes.
We had only one bad experience with Great Southern Plantations but there was no obvious problems at the time we invested. That came later as the errent behaviour of management became evident. We are part of a big group who got caught but our money has not been lost, it will just not have the return forecast initially. We took a gamble with a relatively small amount of money from an inheritance but have not lost although we have not won either!!