Thanks to everyone who shared their thoughts on last week’s comment. This week we have searched for a comment that we think reflects the industry in a more positive light and generates more discussion.
“James Smith” has responded to Thursday’s article, in which SuperRatings predicted an increase in super fund member fees.
In the original article, Adam Gee said, “What we suggest is we’ll probably start seeing asset-based fees from administrators coming in or activity-based fees more so than these dollar-based fees that they currently charge.”
Here is James’ response:
“The truth is the $1 a week admin fee has never been the true admin cost. The TV ads that compare after fee performance over 20 years are clearly based on faulty assumptions and should be banned. How many consumers acted on the assertions made in these TV ads? Who is going to be held responsibility for misleading consumers? Direct marketing to consumers without adequate regulation makes a mockery of the significant gains made in the advice industry to protect consumers. The industry funds track record in using such advertising should highlight the need for scepticism in the legislation they have been lobbying government to implement.”
Do you agree with the comment?
Thanks again to everyone who has commented over the past week. Keep them coming and check in next week to see if your comment out-talked the rest.