The industry superannuation funds movement has raised doubts about whether the commissions-based structures utilised by financial planning networks can ever be compatible with industry superannuation funds, following a decision by AMP Financial Planning to remove industry funds from its approved product list.
The industry superannuation funds movement expressed disappointment at the decision and attributed it to the incompatibility generated by commission structures.
AMP Financial Planning announced in 2004 that it would be including the industry funds on its approved list, but said it had decided to remove them because of low levels of client demand and the costs involved.
Reacting to the decision, funds spokesman Garry Weaven said he was disappointed but not surprised in circumstances where industry superannuation funds did not pay sales commissions.
“When AMP first announced it was including certain industry funds on its approved list, we foreshadowed that no business would be directed,” he said.
Weaven said AMP’s network of financial planners sold products to their clients and received sales commissions from those products, and in circumstances where industry funds did not pay commission there was no reason for planners to recommend an industry fund.
A major super fund has defended its use of private markets in a submission to ASIC, asserting that appropriate governance and information-sharing practices are present in both public and private markets.
A member body representing some prominent wealth managers is concerned super funds’ dominance is sidelining small companies in capital markets.
Earlier this month, several Australian superannuation funds fell victim to credential stuffing attacks, which saw a small number of members lose more than $500,000.
Small- to medium-sized funds have become collateral damage in an "imperfect" model for super industry levies, a financial institution has said.