The bottom line - super funds should be giving more adviceBY CRAIG KEARY | SATURDAY, 24 DEC 2022 9:56AMThe Quality of Advice Review (QAR) proposals offer a fresh regulatory model that supports solving the challenge of millions of unadvised Australian consumers. A key element of ... Upgrade your subscription to access this article
Join the growing community of superannuation
professionals with unlimited access to our latest news, research and analysis of the industry.
Become a premium subscriber today. |
Latest News
AustralianSuper rolls out new investment data platform
|AustralianSuper has implemented a new investment data platform designed to improve portfolio oversight, risk management and decision-making as the superannuation fund expands its global operations.
The risks keeping APRA's new deputy chair up at night
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority's (APRA) new deputy chair David Bradbury said the risks that keep him awake at night are those with the potential to threaten the financial stability of the super system or cause catastrophic losses for members.
Early access undermines super's purpose: Mulino
Assistant treasurer Daniel Mulino took an aim at plans by the opposition to let Australians dip into their super early, stating weakening preservation would undermine intergenerational protections and hurt the most vulnerable.
ART rolls out new investment technology platform
Australian Retirement Trust (ART) has launched a new portfolio management system as the $375 billion superannuation fund strengthens its investment capabilities targeting further growth.
Further Reading
Cover Story

In the right place
VASYL NAIR
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TEAM SUPERANNUATION FUND
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TEAM SUPERANNUATION FUND
Team Super chief executive Vasyl Nair reflects on the winding path from law to superannuation, the people who shaped him and the changing role of super funds in people's lives. Vinny Vucago writes.









The regulatory response to the Royal Commission was inappropriate and has proved dis-functional. The main culprits for inappropriate behaviour was the Product Providers who entered the Advice industry - ownership of licensees.
The correct response should have been to prevent conflict of interest! How? All industry participants to choose Product or Advice and NEVER both.
Now that the departure of both advisers and product providers from the Advice space has demonstrated that the current compliance regime is prohibitive, should this obviously ideal approach be revisited?