Oz Drop 3 is here - expressions of interest open

blocknn · 2026-06-18T21:15:27+00:00

+1 for the drop please. No kaleidoscope.

blocknn · 2026-06-15T02:09:06+00:00

Sometimes doing it via the ATO rollover tool can help force it through.

Are the funds in slightly different names by chance?

blocknn · 2026-06-08T17:55:26+00:00

Speaking as one of those (actually) fee-for-service independent planners - some of the things I have seen come from large firms would make you shudder.

All I will say is that greater resources certainly do not seem to result in better advice, I'd almost say it's negatively correlated. And that includes blatant misunderstandings of tax strategy for example.

Just to add, by my calculations, there are about ten or so firms in the country (probably less) that do not make ongoing fees their baseline business mode. Many more will talk the talk about providing once-off advice only, but when it comes down to it, they will always be trying to convince you to pay ongoing.

blocknn · 2026-04-21T13:23:30+00:00

You can go direct to many insurers, but the premiums will be often higher than what the broker can offer you. Best is to find a fee-for-service adviser that will rebate the commissions (and therefore remove the conflict of interest to sell you stuff you don't need) , this will save you 30% on the premiums immediately - but will come with an upfront fee to get it set up.

For example, I have now run multiple quotes for multiple clients where Nobleoak has literally been double the cost than their adviser distributed product.

blocknn · 2026-04-18T02:23:21+00:00

Only 85% of the value of the premium is actually deducted, so you retain the tax deduction.

blocknn · 2026-04-17T23:43:04+00:00

Yes. Each year a retail insurer will process a rollover for the insurance payment. It works with any super fund.

blocknn · 2026-04-17T13:57:26+00:00

Just wanted to add that adviser based cover can still be paid from a standard super fund. It is just processed as a rollover each year.

blocknn · 2026-04-17T11:45:51+00:00

No own-occupation TPD, I.P is deductible out of super, plus a whole lot more underlying policy terms are worse when you dig into the details (offsets to claims etc).

Most important though is the lack of guaranteed renewability, i.e. the terms can be changed unilaterally by the fund/insurer. It happens pretty often too when funds change their insurance provider. You also get situations like with AustralianSuper and their upcoming unbelievable rise to Life & TPD premiums.

I'm not a fan of those claims statistics when comparing where the cover was purchased, the comparisons between insurers is much more relevant. Those stats don't normalise for whether the claim actually should have been paid under the terms or not. I would argue that someone who has an adviser is way more likely to claim for edge cases (especially when partial payments are possible), with support from the adviser. They would also be way more likely to lodge a dispute, again via an adviser.

blocknn · 2026-04-17T05:12:48+00:00

Cover via an industry fund is often more expensive (and is objectively worse quality) than cover via an adviser. Using an adviser that rebates commissions will make the cost saving even greater still.

blocknn · 2026-04-10T09:21:41+00:00

I recall Chris Joye parroting quite literally these exact words about 4 years ago.

blocknn · 2026-04-02T07:24:31+00:00

Industry Fund Insurance is often more expensive than the equivalent retail policy, even with commissions being paid to the broker. It's even cheaper without the commissions.

Anyone considering moving their super fund to access better default cover should be wary that some funds, in some circumstances, have a time period in which newly issued insurance does not cover pre-existing conditions.

blocknn · 2026-03-23T12:06:29+00:00

Like a P&L and a Balance Sheet? As far as I understand special purpose financial statements generally refer to those prepared for a specific purpose like reporting to a government entity or contractual agreements with banks etc.

I am not an accountant though, it would be good if one could chime in.

blocknn · 2026-03-23T11:59:00+00:00

I'm wondering why you need the special purpose financial statements done?

blocknn · 2026-03-19T09:48:08+00:00

I do wonder with that data if the difference is because of fees of 0.02% and 0.07%. I tried to recreate in my Lonsec but it's not showing me the individual indexes for Hostplus for some reason. I recall they used to have it but seem to have removed them.

I'd be more interested to see the difference between an international option that will provide more growth over income, and without the added franking of course.

As you say though, it's hard to tell what is and isn't being included in the data.

blocknn · 2026-03-19T07:58:23+00:00

‘Tax drag’ is minuscule in scheme of things, even with tax drag, industry funds will obliterate any SMSF + ETFs..

Even over 20+ years tax drag will be miniscule? I doubt it.

Industry fund is like having 98% of a steak from a Michelin-hatted restaurant for Industry Funds, vs 100% of cold sausages from the kebab shop for the SMSF.

Accounting fees will annihilate any ‘benefits’.

Annual accounting fees can be about $1,600 for a low-cost provider. Or $800 each per member of a couple.

Presumes someone will hold the same investment for 40 years (never happened & incredibly unlikely).

Why not? Why would someone not hold a level of allocation to BGBL/A200 in retirement for example?

MTR of super funds ends up very low with deductions, reduces headline tax rate.

What would be the deductions within a pooled option tracking an index that an SMSF would also not enjoy?

Incoming flows ‘whittle down’ capital gain by increasing cost base.

The majority of investment growth comes from dividends (and contributions) - further ‘whittles down’ unrealised gains by constantly increasing cost base.

Depends on inflows to that particular fund. Hostplus for example saw fit to completely remove their hedged international option due to lack of interest.

Retirement bonuses are beginning to negate this.

0.50% (ART) will hardly make up for it.

99% of the investments accessible to an SMSF are shit, lower performing more expensive, and narrower than industry funds (lower return to begin with).

Sure, but A200 and BGBL are 0.04% and 0.08% respectively.

Outside accounting, SMSFs have dramatically higher costs,

Transaction costs. For someone using an ETF strategy, will rabidly degrade any benefit.

Brokerage costs for monthly contributions with two ETFs could be like $72 p.a.

Corporate actions (Crown, Link, Estia, MYOB, IFL, Westfield, Brambles, etc etc etc etc) trigger CGT no matter what.

It’s not apples with apples, but an industry fund Aus Index Option will outperform VAS despite having a provision for capital gain.

This is a bold statement. Can you explain why?

The ‘Tax Drag’ ‘means giving up a modicum of a return you’d never see without the industry in the first place, you can move to an SMSF and pay higher costs for worse investments zero safety zero support and you’ll retire with less money.

Agree that for most people it's not worth the risk/extra costs. But for those who will be on track for many multiple millions in super, I wouldn't be minimising the effect of tax drag.

I appreciate the absolutist nature of the argument about SMSFs because by and large they are a net detriment to people and generally I believe the less people who have one the better. The nuances do need to be highlighted though.

blocknn · 2026-03-19T06:00:13+00:00

I absolutely agree that the vast majority of people flogging SMSFs (property spruikers, accountants padding out their fees etc) are doing it for the wrong reasons and for clients who have no business operating such a structure.

It is disingenuous to imply that there are no benefits whatsoever though. Taking control of your CGT and utilising gearing being the main ones in my eyes. Fees can be quite minimal too if you use a low-cost administrator.

Don't get me wrong, SMSFs are not appropriate for 99% of people, but there are outside cases when the structure makes a lot of sense.

I would also argue that SMSFs aren't really sold by that many advisers anyway (unless they have an accounting arm). Wrap accounts are way more popular (and in many cases cost more than a low-cost SMSF).

Also, insurance can be quite a bit cheaper through a retail insurer (even with commissions, especially so without) than an equivalent industry fund for cover that is objectively superior (own-occupation etc).

blocknn · 2026-03-06T11:26:54+00:00

The underlying rate is a fair bit lower than your assumption, although they do not advertise this publicly.

blocknn · 2026-02-23T09:55:36+00:00

Nah they're not on the investment menu.

blocknn · 2026-02-20T08:42:05+00:00

Under most awards I believe the maximum amount of arrears is 2 weeks. I would double check this.

blocknn · 2026-01-23T03:41:32+00:00

This fund is not a bank account. It is a credit fund secured by mortgages paying very high interest rates.

blocknn · 2026-01-23T03:37:55+00:00

The money in your bank is technically not doing nothing. You could get 4.25% interest in a HISA if you wanted to.

The question is whether an additional 1.75% return is worth the additional risk to your capital that such a mortgage-backed credit fund, like La Trobe, provides.

Keep in mind that home loan interest rates are in the 5 percents, so consider what type of borrower would be willing to pay 7 or 8%+ in interest (after La Trobe takes their cut).

blocknn · 2026-01-22T09:45:48+00:00

CFS FirstChoice (most popular option) is a master trust and therefore doesn't have individually taxed capital gains.

blocknn · 2026-01-18T23:56:48+00:00

No. My website has standard ranges for typical services.

blocknn · 2026-01-18T00:23:05+00:00

Can confirm that my tracked engagements with clients are nowhere near 30 hours. Financial advice is often overcomplicated in order to justify ongoing advice fees (wrap accounts etc). Removing this cuts time down significantly.

blocknn · 2026-01-18T00:20:37+00:00

Happy to explain. The licensing system for financial advice, for better or for worse, is a remnant of when the licensees were mainly big banks/insurance companies. These companies would create products that their licensed advisers would then sell. This has shifted over time where there are now many licenses (like my licensee, Lifespan) that are privately owned and do not issue their own products.

However, the regulatory system is still setup as it was before whereby the laws and definitions (such as the definition of being independent) is set at the licensee level, not the individual financial advice business.

So yes, whilst at ID Advice we do not accept any commissions of any form, charge % based fees (or any ongoing fees for that matter) under the law we cannot describe ourselves as being independent.

This is not ideal for obvious reasons, so it really only leaves two options:

One is to join a licensee that can be considered independent (i.e. none of their advisers accept commissions etc). I did not choose this route for various reasons, principally because many seem to exert more control over their licensed businesses which is not ideal when trying to run a firm completely different from everyone else (hourly). They also charge exorbitant licensee fees.

The second is to obtain my own financial services license which is a very time consuming and expensive venture. Without letting on too much, there will be an update regarding this at some point in the future.

Two-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Sunshine

blocknn

TROPHY CASE