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
Super turns a safety-net retirement into a comfortable one: ASFA
A comfortable retirement for a couple who own their own home now costs $1513 a week, according to the latest Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) Retirement Standard, which found that super remains key to comfortable retirement.
Trust emerges as key drivers of super fund loyalty
Superannuation fund members are becoming more purposeful in their interactions with funds, while trust has emerged as the clearest driver of loyalty and advocacy, according to new CoreData research.
Three super funds fined for misleading investment options
Three industry superannuation funds - Australian Retirement Trust (ART), TelstraSuper and Australian Food Super - have been pinged by ASIC for misleading members about their investment options' asset allocation and performance objectives.
Retiree super spending injects $121bn into Aussie economy
New research has found retirees will spend close to $121 billion from their superannuation in 2026, bolstering the Australian economy and supporting jobs.
Further Reading
Cover Story

Leading the way
SHARON DAVIS
NON-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
FUTURE GROUP AUSTRALIA HOLDINGS PTY LTD
NON-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
FUTURE GROUP AUSTRALIA HOLDINGS PTY LTD
Sharon Davis has always been fascinated by the human condition; it has driven her passion for people, her career, and building a better future for the next generation and beyond. Eliza Bavin 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?