Superannuation Advice Australia - heard of them/are they any good?

[andye]

There's a group of cold call/website scumbags who operate out of SE Qld, keep changing their name. A couple of them have previously been banned by ASIC.

IIRC they often pop up when people do searches for super advice or switching but I've heard of people being called too, basically they tell you they'll get you a better return, roll you over to a North platform and switch the super allocation to 100% growth (that's how they claim they'll achieve a better return, more risk). Sting you 3-4 grand, usually on a sub 100k account because it's young people they catch who have NFI, don't address your insurance, just leave your old super open for to run out of $$.

Just to be devil's advocate, that strategy is highly likely to be a winner for a fit, young person on a lowish income with no dependents (assuming the $3-4k is a one-off rather than annual fee).
[Though of course they could replicate much more cheaply within a conventional superfund]

 

[tgh]

The basic rule is one of risk-v- reward.
Aggressive smaller funds seeking to build may run a higher risk profile than a mature fund.
Funds remove almost all the personal decision making risk and , to that end, are a good product for most folks.
Whenever fund are compared, the % annual value over time is usually quoted.
This is a simplistic metric; a far better more informative measure defines earnings, valuation and costs.

Smsf's can be a nightmare for many due to the responsibility and complexity
Self managed funds may do do as well or better than large funds but are hamstrung by relegation, (in most cases) to retail level purchase input.
Promises are the stock in trade of many (most) commercial actors; getting into this and outa that leads to confusion and indecision for the less street aware supplicant.
Churn begets fees .. caveat emptor.

 

[andye]

The basic rule is one of risk-v- reward.
Aggressive smaller funds seeking to build may run a higher risk profile than a mature fund.
Funds remove almost all the personal decision making risk and , to that end, are a good product for most folks.
Whenever fund are compared, the % annual value over time is usually quoted.
This is a simplistic metric; a far better more informative measure defines earnings, valuation and costs.

Smsf's can be a nightmare for many due to the responsibility and complexity
Self managed funds may do do as well or better than large funds but are hamstrung by relegation, (in most cases) to retail level purchase input.
Promises are the stock in trade of many (most) commercial actors; getting into this and outa that leads to confusion and indecision for the less street aware supplicant.
Churn begets fees .. caveat emptor.

The major problem with the strategy for the person I described above is the ongoing costs. Any company advocating for an smsf for a sub-$100k balance deserves the book thrown at them.
It's just that with a 40 year horizon a very high growth strategy isn't necessarily wrong.
As for insurances: no dependents means life insurance very marginal. If income is not very high, NDIS is likely to soften blow of an illness where you can't work again. There is a risk that you may develop an illness which makes life insurance difficult to get in the future but the risk is pretty small.

 

[OZDUCK]

There's a group of cold call/website scumbags who operate out of SE Qld, keep changing their name. A couple of them have previously been banned by ASIC.

IIRC they often pop up when people do searches for super advice or switching but I've heard of people being called too, basically they tell you they'll get you a better return, roll you over to a North platform and switch the super allocation to 100% growth (that's how they claim they'll achieve a better return, more risk). Sting you 3-4 grand, usually on a sub 100k account because it's young people they catch who have NFI, don't address your insurance, just leave your old super open for to run out of $$.

This very sort of scam was highlighted on the ABC site this morning.

'You're not just selling a box of chocolates': Cold callers offering super reviews under investigation

ASIC has launched an investigation into cold callers offering superannuation reviews. Those impacted say they felt pressured to switch superannuation providers.

www.abc.net.au

 

[moa999]

Churn begets fees .. caveat emptor.

Absolutely.
And even the bigger advisers seems to push changes every year (as their recommended funds change).

And not to mention the platform.
My father's advisors switched to one of the more modern platforms but needed to sell everything and rebuy and managed to leave funds non-invested for a couple of days - thankfully marginally beneficial but you could easily lose a few % there.

 

[deebens]

This very sort of scam was highlighted on the ABC site this morning.

'You're not just selling a box of chocolates': Cold callers offering super reviews under investigation

ASIC has launched an investigation into cold callers offering superannuation reviews. Those impacted say they felt pressured to switch superannuation providers.

www.abc.net.au

Jesus, that's uncanny. I never saw that, but it's pretty much it.

 

[deebens]

Just to be devil's advocate, that strategy is highly likely to be a winner for a fit, young person on a lowish income with no dependents (assuming the $3-4k is a one-off rather than annual fee).
[Though of course they could replicate much more cheaply within a conventional superfund]

I get where you're coming from, but they still charge an adviser fee and plus there's no judicious fund choice. Not joking when I say the total fees were almost 2% pa.