Australian Broker forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Advisers, brokers slammed for accepting shady SMSF commissions

Notify me of new replies via email
Australian Broker | 26 Aug 2013, 08:00 AM Agree 0
Financial advisers and mortgage brokers alike are being offered backhanders in order to push SMSF property investment packages
  • Chris C | 26 Aug 2013, 10:37 AM Agree 0
    Funny how it is written that (all) financial advisors and (only) some brokers are dodgy.......... places a real negative across everyone in the industry which anyone with a half a brain knows is of course is incorrect..when are reporters and editors going to report the facts rather than sensationalise rubbish. Reminder : we don't need regulations and red tape if we do the right thing and apply some common sense.
  • Brian C | 26 Aug 2013, 10:40 AM Agree 0
    Just the blunt end of the knife!! Immediate action by the Government to regulate the Property Investment Advice space (inside & outside of SMSF's). Obviously it takes exposure & investigation by the media to get the Regulators to act after major damage is done by well known Property Spuikers & not so well known. Immediate action required now>!!
  • Regional Broker | 26 Aug 2013, 10:50 AM Agree 0
    Any broker who accepts this commission or even recommends clients to these investment is just foolish . I will NEVER recommend an investment , it is the financial planners role to look at the suitability of any investment , mine is to obtain a suitable loan working in conjunction with the planner and or accountant.
  • iMac | 26 Aug 2013, 11:15 AM Agree 0
    If none of the clients are complaining, then Neil, why are you ?
    Property, on a risk weighted basis, is MILES ahead of equities, according to the ABS and ANZ economics. So SMSF/property may not be a bad place to put you assets.
    Neil, You are doing the same as an ambulance chasing lawyer. Go out and get some real business Neil.
  • QEDRisk | 26 Aug 2013, 11:44 AM Agree 0
    I have been saying for some time now that concerns like Neil's are very well founded. The issue for super, iMac, is that for many SMSFs over-investment in property totally blows what anyone would consider to be a prudent asset allocation model. Going 100% property totally contradicts any conventional wisdom and is just outright naive.

    Brian C is dead right - property investment needs to be brought inside the regulated fold, just like the rest of us and level the playing field!

    Treasury/ASIC needs to wise up and get moving on this ticking time bomb.
  • Brian C | 26 Aug 2013, 01:02 PM Agree 0
    The problem is that some advisers have an issue with honesty, greed & making a fast buck. Common sense is not going to protect the innocent, trusting & naive client.
  • iMac | 26 Aug 2013, 01:33 PM Agree 0
    With the market 'on the Up' fewer people are complaining, which means Neil's business model is under pressure. Its not robust, that's the real problem, and there is not enough complaints for his business model to be profitable. If there are No general complaints, then its just Neil's 'opinion' that there is a problem.
    And Yes I agree, that too greater % of your super in property is contrary to widely held belief on spreading your risk. But it is a fact, that on a risk weighted basis, resi investment property is a MILE in front. So I submit, that this widely held belief, is incorrect in this instance. In this instance, its just Neil complaining about lack of business. And that does not constitute a valid complaint on any level.
  • leop | 27 Aug 2013, 08:52 AM Agree 0
    can someone make sure iMac has no clients
  • iMac | 28 Aug 2013, 02:24 AM Agree 0
    Ha ha, to late Leop. I got lots of clients :-)
Post a reply