The plight of the snake oil salesman used to be a hard one. You’d have to go town to town selling your half truths and lies, hoping no one from the town you just left caught up with you. Social media platforms solved this problem, they let the modern snake oil salesman reach everyone with a device in seconds.

The platforms have done little to protect consumers in the process. They’ve got no incentive to: the shonks are among the social media platforms’ best paying customers. With social media, these salesmen can sell at scale in record time, leaving regulators, honest market participants and consumers to pick up the pieces.

This is the story of high risk super switching, the practice that has already ripped over a billion dollars from people looking to save for their retirement after people were funneled on an industrial scale into two dodgy investments. Yet these business models survive and cause catastrophic harm to people. They will do far worse if we don’t stop them.

My job is superannuation. I’d seen the consumer awareness campaigns warning people off high risk super switching and heard the catch cries, “if it sounds too good to be true it probably is”. I decided to sign up for one myself.

Signing up for a ‘super health check’

It was easy enough. My instagram feed was overflowing with advertisements showing ordinary people living busy lives who knew they should be paying more attention to their super, but didn’t know where to start. It was relatable, common sense guidance. They told me the government had tested the performance of funds and with a simple “super health check” I could find out if I was in one of the ones that failed. I entered my contact details and waited for a call.

A few days later, I got a call offering to put me in touch with a financial expert with over a decade of experience in super. The man I spoke to seemed knowledgeable, he was likeable and complimented me for getting on top of my super at a young age. He even complimented me on the decisions I’d made to date, like taking on more risk for longer term returns.

All the while he was running down the trust in my current super fund. He showed me how opaque their fee disclosures are, talked about super fund customer service failures and why my fund’s investment strategies deliver such poor returns. All good lies have an element of truth. 

A strong sales pitch

A week later I talked to a second financial adviser and was given a statement of advice with recommendations on what to do with my super. For someone with some knowledge of investment returns, there was no real magic to it.

They recommended 16 exchange traded funds (ETFs). The key selling point of this type of investment is it is usually a relatively cheap way to own a diverse mix of investments. They looked like they had a stronger history of performance than my existing super fund. My fund was delivering 11.5% p.a. compared to almost 16% p.a. in the adviser recommended ETFs over the last 5 years.

Looking under the hood, this 5-year comparison period was critical: most credible financial advice would use a longer timeframe among other types of comparisons. The last 5 years has been a boom period for semiconductors and gold. Lo and behold, the advice I received recommended ETFs that were heavily invested in these two markets.

Picking yesterday’s winners is not a skill. Semiconductors and gold may continue on their bull run for a while yet (although the glimmer has come off gold this year), but outperformance like this requires active management. Outside of an annual review, this is not what the financial adviser was offering. Conversely, my existing fund does actively manage my investments, so despite the sales pitch I likely would be much better off staying put.

All up, the advice was going to set me back $11,000 upfront and an ongoing advice fee of $3,800 a year. This is steep given the advice was relatively simple. In fact, it was cookie cutter. And much higher than the typical cost of advice, which is currently $4,700 according to the Financial Advice Association of Australia. On top of that, the administration and investment fees were 24% higher per year on the platform they recommended I join.

But here’s the thing. Even though I knew it was a switching scheme and I knew the advice was bad, it was still a very convincing sales pitch. They were smooth, they were professional and they took their time trying to convince me. I didn’t switch, but if I weren’t working in super… I might have. 

Dodgy advertisers should be banned

I’m sharing this as a warning to consumers, but also as a call to action for the government. Australians have diligently saved to create a $4 trillion dollar superannuation system. It’s now time to protect it by banning these dodgy advertisers. We need consumer protections to make sure super platforms are responsible for keeping people safe. Charging someone $11,000 for cookie cutter advice should never be allowed.  and we’ve heard reports of people being stung for $20,000 or more for dodgy switching advice. The bleeding of Australians’ retirement savings from inappropriate advice needs to end.

If my story sounds familiar, please check on your super and read about what you can do on the  website. It was developed by Super Consumers Australia with the support of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission; it offers free, independent information to those impacted by the Shield and First Guardian Master Fund collapses.

Get the inside story on our investigations into consumer rip-offs and bad business practices.

Sign up

Read our privacy policy

The post I signed up for a ‘super health check’. What I got was an $11,000 bill appeared first on ĚÇĐÄVlog.

That’s despite a confidence rate 19 percentage points higher than their Generation Z counterparts, and a 31 percentage point higher level of engagement with their superannuation.

The ‘Your Say on Super’ survey is a nationally representative survey of almost 5000 consumers of various generations.

CEO of Super Consumers Australia Xavier O’Halloran says the findings highlight the important differences in the needs and milestones of each generation when it comes to super, but that each stage is important. 

He says missing these key moments and steps can be costly come retirement time. 

“Each generation has unique challenges ahead for retirement, but no matter what generation you are, there are things you can do right now with your superannuation to set yourself up for the future,” O’Halloran says. 

Generation Z 

Of the youngest generation in the workforce, the survey found only 51% had engaged with their superannuation at all. Results show that 21% of Gen Zs did not know that employers are legally required to pay their employees superannuation.

“Our guidance for Gen Z is simply to log in to your superannuation and get to know your account,” says O’Halloran.

“It’ll be with you for a while, so make sure the basics are right – that your employer is paying your superannuation properly and all of your details are accurate.” 

Millennials

Of the Millennials surveyed, 62% had engaged with their super, but only 52% felt confident making a decision. 

Those with young families are being urged to check their super accounts to make sure their needs are reflected. The survey found 57% of Millennials did not know that superannuation funds automatically enrol you into their default insurance if you’re over 25 years old.

Gen X

“Many Gen Xers will be thinking about retirement, but still have time to make a difference in their super balances,” O’Halloran says. 

“Figure out your retirement target – the amount you need for a comfortable lifestyle in retirement. Then check that this lines up with the income you are likely to receive from your superannuation and the Age Pension.”

Baby Boomers

Super Consumers urge those of the Boomer generation and older to make a binding death benefit nomination, so they can control where their super goes after they die. 

“One of the most heartbreaking things we see is the struggles families have dealing with a family member’s superannuation while grieving,” says O’Halloran.

Need for education

For all generations, ASIC’s Moneysmart has further resources, calculators and information to help you engage with your superannuation. 

But O’Halloran says more needs to be done to educate Australians about superannuation,  including more funding for the Moneysmart resource and broadscale awareness campaigns. 

“The superannuation engagement gap between Boomers and Gen Z shows the government and the superannuation industry need to do a lot more to educate and empower people,” says O’Halloran. 

The post Australians failing to understand key stages in superannuation journey appeared first on ĚÇĐÄVlog.

Since 2022, the former consumer advocate has been spending part of her time trawling the web for dodgy superannuation advertisements, plugging in her details and then taking note of what happens next. 

“I was getting so many phone calls it got to the point where I thought ‘I better get another phone’. So I have another phone, another name, another email. I have a spreadsheet where I track it all, but it’s a bit messy now,” she says. 

The people on the other end of the phone make Carolyn all kinds of promises. One man assures her she can be $200,000 better off in retirement if she switches super funds, without taking on any extra risk. 

“You have nothing to lose and everything to gain,” trumpets a pitch document that was sent to Carolyn. 

The promises roll in despite the fact that these types of callers are not legally allowed to provide financial advice or sell a financial product. They are what the industry calls “lead generators”, and recent financial scandals have experts calling for them to be banned altogether.

What are lead generators?

Lead generators gather your information – sometimes without your consent – from various interactions you may have had online. Perhaps web forms you’ve filled out, social media surveys you’ve responded to, or a competition you’ve entered. 

They might set up web pages that offer customers a “free super health check” or similar services, and promote them heavily on social media, through ads or partnerships with financial influencers.

Angel Zhong, deputy dean of the department of economics, finance and marketing at RMIT University, says ‘finfluencers’ often push the boundaries of what constitutes financial advice, and nudge people towards lead generators for a “kickback” or commission. 

“There is no such thing as a free lunch,” says Zhong. “That’s especially true in the world of online marketing.”

Once the lead generators have your details, they’ll then call you on the phone to get you interested in a product. 

In the world of superannuation, they are usually trying to convince you to switch your superannuation to a financial product with higher fees and higher risks.

Legal loopholes and anti-hawking laws

While the lead generator can’t legally sell you the financial product or service themselves without a licence, they will often get you interested in switching your super fund without mentioning the name of the product they’re trying to get you to invest in. 

Once the cold lead is sufficiently “warmed up”, they will forward you on to a financial adviser, who is licensed and allowed to sell a financial product. 

It’s a way around the legal protections and so-called anti-hawking provisions designed to  prevent the cold-call selling of financial products. 

Xavier O’Halloran, CEO of Super Consumers Australia, says it’s the simplicity of the premise that hooks people in. 

“People are being sold on the idea that they might be in a poor-performing superannuation fund and they can click a button and find out if they are, and then find a better one.

“But what typically follows from sharing their details is a series of high-pressure sales tactics, very carefully crafted to get people to switch superannuation funds for very, very high fees and higher risk,” he says.

Shield and First Guardian collapse

Alyssa Jackson has no idea how the lead generators got her phone number. The Gold Coast woman, who says she has always taken an interest in superannuation and regularly checks her balance, was in the local Woolworths supermarket in 2023 when she got a call offering her a comparison for free. 

“I thought, what can it hurt?” she says. 

Alyssa says she was passed through multiple people over the phone, who she describes as “very smooth”, before being convinced to roll over most of her superannuation into a new platform called First Guardian.

By 2025, the First Guardian Master Fund had infamously collapsed. Along with the demise of another investment scheme, Shield Master Fund, it left more than 11,000 Australians with little hope of ever seeing their retirement savings again. 

Alyssa lost around $60,000 in the collapse – a terrible outcome for her, but a small amount compared to many other victims. 

The corporate regulator, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), is still working through several ongoing court cases relating to the twin collapses, and liquidators are still trying to recover assets, but in total about $1.1 billion dollars of people’s retirement savings may have been lost in the scandal. 

Appearing before a parliamentary committee in May this year, ASIC confirmed that First Guardian and related funds had paid more than $100 million to lead generators to drum up business.

Time for an outright ban on lead generators

Stephanie Tonkin, CEO of Consumer Action Law Centre, says given the evidence of the harm that has been caused by lead generation, it is time for an outright ban. 

“Getting to the bottom of the extent and harm of lead generation is difficult because it is such a hidden problem, it is lurking in the background,” she says. 

But there is no doubt, she says, that lead generation has become “a significant source of consumer harm”.

O’Halloran from Super Consumers Australia agrees that it’s time the practice was banned, as does ASIC Commissioner Alan Kirkland.

Kirkland also argues against any kind of licensing of lead generators as a potential remedy, which some in the industry have called for. 

“We don’t see any benefit from licensing lead generators. Based on what we’ve seen in our work over time in this area, a clear ban on lead generation activities in relation to super would be more likely to protect consumers into the future,” Kirkland says. 

ASIC has taken the step of along with financial advice firms that work with them. Kirkland says it’s important information for consumers. 

“The people on the other end of the line can seem quite knowledgeable … we really do encourage people to be on the lookout for anybody that’s encouraging them to move their super,” he says. 

Super Members Council, the peak body representing industry super funds, also wants a ban on lead generation. 

“When you look at those searing case studies and witness and victim testimonials from these terrible collapses [Shield and First Guardian], this wasn’t driven in the main by individual consumers articulating that they were looking actively for a switch. It has often started with that clickbait activity,” Council CEO Misha Schubert says.

Super funds need to ‘step up’

Super Consumers’ O’Halloran says that big industry funds also have a role to play, and says they’ve been “asleep at the wheel” when it comes to combatting harmful lead generation practices. 

“They saw these outflows from their fund and did little to question or prevent it, they failed to engage with their members, and the lead generators preyed and took advantage of that,” he says. 

Schubert, from the Super Members Council, maintains that superannuation funds are providing consumers with warnings about dangerous products. 

But O’Halloran argues that every part of the super system must step up and take part in stamping out these predatory practices. 

“I have a harder time trying to leave my internet provider, my electricity provider or my health insurance than my super fund,” says O’Halloran. “Where is that call to understand why I am leaving? I think they could do a lot to warn people at that point.” 

Treasury is currently considering consultation feedback on ways to curb harmful lead generation activity and is expected to hand its recommendations to the government in the coming months. 

The post Why free superannuation health checks are more dangerous than you think appeared first on ĚÇĐÄVlog.

Losing the ability to work because of illness or injury would strike a devastating financial blow for most of us. The ripple effects would be far-reaching, from mounting bills all the way to the prospect of defaulting on a mortgage.

This is where income protection insurance is supposed to come in. It’s generally an opt-in inclusion if you have insurance through your superannuation account, and it can also be obtained through a financial adviser or directly from the insurer.

There are conditions on how long it lasts and whether you qualify for it, but, when it works as advertised, having a significant portion of your income restored (generally around 75%) can keep the economic wolves at bay.

The problem is that the insurance industry has a shaky record on living up to its obligations. The delay between making an income protection claim and receiving payments can be unreasonably long, and the level and quality of communication from your insurer after you lodge a claim can be poor, sometimes very poor.

The latest Life Insurance Code Compliance Committee (Life CCC) annual report reveals the situation is getting worse.

The Life CCC monitors compliance with the Life Insurance Code of Practice, which as of July 2023 has required insurers to finalise income protection claims within five business days of receiving the information they need to decide whether to pay the claim or not.

For many policyholders in financial year 2024-25, it took a lot longer than that.

Violations of the code’s rules on timely income protection payments increased by 67% over the previous financial year, from 997 in 2023-24 to 1663 in 2024-25. The number of affected insurance customers went from 1000 to 1676. The data was provided to the Life CCC by insurers in accordance with their mandatory reporting requirements. It’s unclear whether these numbers tell the whole story.

Insurers’ poor communication skills called out

Life CCC chair Jan McClelland says income protection benefits “are designed to provide financial stability at a time when customers may be at their most vulnerable. Delayed payments can place additional strain on people who are already dealing with significant personal and financial challenges.”

Experiencing a communication breakdown with your insurer only makes matters worse.

“When customers don’t receive timely and clear information at the start of a claim, it can create uncertainty at an already stressful time,” McClelland says.

“Clear communication helps people understand what to expect and supports better outcomes throughout the claims process.”

The increase in income protection code breaches may have to do with the growing proportion of Australians who have been permanently disabled by a mental health condition.

According to a November 2025 report by the Council of Australian Life Insurers (CALI), the proportion had more than doubled over the previous 10 years, and there was a 40% increase in temporary disability payments due to a mental illness over the same time period.

The insurance industry’s discrimination against people suffering from a mental illness is well documented, and many organisations have called for reform, including Beyond Blue, Mental Health Australia, the Justice and Equity Centre and Sane Australia.

Income protection – both having cover rejected and having claims delayed or denied – is a particular area of concern.

In December 2023, ĚÇĐÄVlog conducted a mystery shop of 15 travel insurance providers and found widespread discrimination against customers disclosing a pre-existing condition of depression with anxiety, one of the most common mental illness combinations in Australia.

Where to lodge an income protection dispute

Your first step is to lodge a dispute with the insurance provider, which would have 45 days to respond. If you have income protection insurance through your super fund, lodge a dispute with the fund.

If you don’t think the response is fair or don’t receive one, you can to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA).

AFCA receives more complaints about income protection insurance than any other product category by a wide margin. There were 530 in 2024-25 as compared to 359 for the second most-complained about product, term life insurance.

In 2024-25, the insurers with the most disputes about income protection cover (per 100,000 policyholders) were:

• Purchased through financial adviser: Resolution Life, 1110 disputes.
• Purchased through superannuation: ART Life, 194 disputes.
• Purchased direct from insurer: TAL, 567 disputes.

Complaints about TPD claims

The Life CCC also called out a notable increase in complaints about Total and Permanent Disability (TPD) claims in recent years.

McClelland says TPD claims are “often made in difficult and complex circumstances and customers need confidence that insurers’ processes will support timely, consistent and well communicated outcomes”, something that appears to be happening with declining frequency.

In 2024-25, the insurers with the most disputes about Total and Permanent Disability cover (per 100,000 policyholders) were:

• Purchased through financial adviser: Resolution Life, 278 disputes.
• Purchased through superannuation: Resolution Life, 4140 disputes.

McClelland says insurers need to take the Life CCC’s findings on board. 

“Understanding the drivers of dissatisfaction is an important step in improving both processes and customer experience.”

The post Insurers still failing to pay out income protection and TPD claims on time appeared first on ĚÇĐÄVlog.

Last year, however, after reading news reports of AustralianSuper’s reinvestment in big coal companies, she wrote to her super fund to express her concern and to try to get some answers. 

“I would sign petitions, write emails and things like that. Responses would come back months later, copy and paste responses that didn’t address any individual issues raised,” she says. 

In the last 12 months, AustralianSuper have backflipped on their 2020 divestment from Whitehaven coal, purchasing shares worth around $400 million and becoming the largest single shareholder in the company. 

AustralianSuper tells us they remain committed to reaching net zero by 2050, but activist groups such as Market Forces say that is simply “greenwashing” given Whitehaven’s massive coal mining expansion plans around Australia. 

“AustralianSuper is greenwashing by suggesting that its massive stake in Whitehaven is consistent with its climate commitments,” Brett Morgan, senior superannuation funds analyst at Market Forces says. 

Cate felt the same. 

“I didn’t get the response I wanted to hear when I inquired about fossil fuels. Eventually I just decided there was no hope here and voted with my money.” 

Cate moved her around a quarter of a million dollars out of AustralianSuper to a fund she felt more ethically aligned with. In a world of confusing fund names and labels and competing claims, it’s a move few Australians make and one that advocates say could be about to get harder. 

Treasury consulting on new sustainable labels 

The federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers has instructed Treasury to come up with a new labelling scheme for financial products. The idea is that clearer, better defined and common rules for using terms such as “green”, “environmental” and “sustainable” will unlock greater levels of green investment from private capital, in line with the federal government’s Net Zero goals. 

Submissions on the Sustainable Financial Product Label Policy Framework closed in March and Treasury has yet to announce their next steps or what direction the policy will take. 

Super Consumers Australia’s Susan Quinn says one proposal is a “loose and principles-based” disclosure scheme that could lower the threshold for the quality of evidence required to substantiate sustainability claims and make greenwashing harder to detect and enforce. 

“No doubt the super funds’ marketing teams would love it. But it would make things even harder and less certain for people who are navigating green claims by super funds. And it could seriously undermine the effectiveness of anti-greenwashing laws that we already have,” she says. 

Industry advocates say the proposed changes won’t help

In the last two years, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has taken major high-profile legal action against a number of super funds for greenwashing. In 2024, Mercer was ordered to pay over $11 million by the Federal Court for misleading customers and Active Super copped a penalty of over $10 million for greenwashing misconduct in 2025.

Quinn says these recent actions show that the current system is already working to prevent greenwashing and that Treasury’s new labelling proposals are trying to fix a problem that doesn’t exist and may make it easier for the super funds to get away with greenwashing. 

“People who are interested in green investment have been shocked to find out that their supposedly sustainable super is still sitting in fossil fuels or other things that are big no-nos for them. Super funds could do so much better to help people understand what their sustainable products really are. A start would be to just be open about all the companies they’re invested in,” she says. 

She says it’s hard to see how a loose labelling scheme is going to make the general public’s understanding of what these products mean better. 

“We keep seeing funds do things like apply ‘tolerances’ for fossil fuel investments. So they’ll still invest in a company that makes money from fossil fuels, as long as it’s below a certain portion of the company’s revenue. Then they’ll slap a ‘sustainable’ label on the super product. This means lots of disclaimers in the fine print and we want to see regulators do more to clamp down on it,” Quinn adds.   

Industry backs reforms 

While industry advocates are skeptical of the proposed changes, those within the superannuation industry have a different perspective. Louise Davidson, CEO of the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors, which is the peak body representing industry super funds, says the Council supports the Treasury consult’s principles of improving customer understanding. 

“It’s a very complex area, and we would like to see product innovation continue. There’s a balance but we think there is an opportunity to leverage existing laws and also enhance the information available to retail investors and superannuation members to minimise both complexity and compliance burden,” she says. 

Criteria must be scientifically-based

Katarina Thompson, the acting managing lawyer at the Environmental Defenders Office, takes a balanced view, agreeing that a new labelling regime could be positive, but with the caveat that it has to be “done right”. 

“Changes could be really positive, as long as the regime is robust and any criteria used to verify the financial products are scientifically-based,” she says. 

She says the current way of operating is far too complicated for consumers, who have to investigate and interrogate products to understand what super funds are doing with their money, even when they claim to be in “green” or “ethical” fund options. 

“There is a lot of vague language and language that is not necessarily backed up by publicly available, independently verified science being used in the superannuation space. That is really problematic for consumers’ ability to check the veracity of the claims being made. There is a lot of room for improvement,” Thompson says. 

 Concerns that the new scheme might mislead consumers

However, advocates remain concerned that the proposed idea of introducing “thresholds” for what level of a product’s investments can be not aligned with environmentally sustainable investments is a worrying precedent. 

One of the proposals being considered by Treasury in the consultation is that investment products with less than 30% exposure to unaligned investments be considered to meet the threshold to use certain sustainability labels. 

“Any product claiming ‘green’ or ‘sustainable’ labelling should not be exposed to companies expanding fossil fuel production, not at all, in any way,” Brett Morgan from Market Forces says. 

Quinn says the government needs to conduct independent testing to gather evidence about what Australian consumers think and expect each of these environmental labels to mean and make sure the new scheme abides by these expectations. 

“We’re concerned that the super industry is trying to shape a labelling regime that works for them, not the people it’s really supposed to benefit. There’s a big disconnect between what people at super funds think is sustainable or green, and what millions of people across Australia think,” she says. 

“If the government forges ahead with a labelling scheme without rigorous consumer testing built in, it’s pretty much guaranteed to enable more greenwashing,” Quinn adds. 

A spokesperson for Treasurer Jim Chalmers’ office says ensuring markets and consumers have clear and credible information on climate and sustainability, including in superannuation, will be key to achieving net zero. 

“Our government has always taken a consultative approach on these issues, which is why we have recently consulted on options to make sustainable financial products easier to understand and assess,” they say. 

Get the inside story on our investigations into consumer rip-offs and bad business practices.

Sign up

Read our privacy policy

The post Superannuation greenwashing is rife: Will a new labelling system make it worse? appeared first on ĚÇĐÄVlog.

Around this time she saw a Facebook ad for an investment opportunity. The timing seemed perfect; this was her chance to grow her nest egg. 

The problem was that the so-called investment opportunity was actually a set-up for a scam. At the insistence of the scammer, who groomed her over a period of weeks, Betty withdrew $5000 from her superannuation account every day for over a month and fed the money into cryptocurrency. Betty hadn’t heard of cryptocurrency, and had never traded in crypto before the scam.  

In the end, she lost a total of $140,000 to the scam. Nobody from her superannuation fund spoke to her or raised concerns about the suspicious transaction pattern. 

Meg Dalling, assistant director of policy and campaigns at Consumer Action Law Centre, which provided support to Betty, says her case “goes to the heart” of a major gap in superannuation. 

“For people who are retired, it’s just far too easy to get your money out of your retirement fund and move it to a complete scam,” Dalling says. 

“We’ve seen the banks step up their efforts to prevent scams, but super funds are really far behind. I think one of the issues with the super funds is there’s typically not a lot of engagement with customers.”

Experts are warning of a giant “honey pot” for scammers to target over the coming years, with Australia’s aging population and trillions of dollars moving into the retirement phase of superannuation, where funds are much easier to access. 

While the federal government has released a new scam prevention plan, advocates say it doesn’t include what’s needed to make sure superannuation is safe in retirement. In fact, obligations on super funds to protect their members from scams are not included in the government’s plan at all. 

How big is the issue?

Australians over 65 reported the highest level of scam losses of any age demographic to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s (ACCC) ScamWatch service in 2025, losing $89 million.

They were the most likely to lose money to investment scams, romance scams and other major scam types. 

That age category is particularly relevant for superannuation, because when someone is over 65 they can move their funds into the retirement phase, giving them far greater capacity to make withdrawals with minimal restrictions. While this allows flexibility, it also means far fewer checks and queries.  

‘Significant gaps’ exposed in anti-scam protections

In February, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) sounded the alarm and called for immediate action from superannuation trustees to strengthen anti-scam protections. 

The call came after an ASIC review of scam- and fraud-related information and support on 47 super funds websites, which the regulator compared against website content from the big four banks. ASIC found “significant gaps” in communications and member support from super funds. 

“Super funds often lacked clarity, accessibility, and support for scam victims. When benchmarked against other industries, super funds fell short for victims,” ASIC Commissioner Simone Constant says. 

“Super funds have a clear and unavoidable responsibility to oversee risk and ensure these emerging threats are identified and managed actively.”

No national data on super scams

No government department or regulatory body, including the National Anti-Scam Centre, collects data on how much money is lost to scammers each year that originated from superannuation accounts. 

Because money is transferred from superannuation into a person’s bank account first before it’s taken by scammers, it’s not being captured as a superannuation scam.

The “Report a Scam” form to ScamWatch doesn’t even include a superannuation option or any way for someone to indicate that superannuation was lost in the scam either directly or indirectly.

The ACCC says it undertakes “comprehensive searches of multiple Scamwatch data fields to determine when such reports relate to superannuation schemes”. However, this relies on an individual proactively sharing this information in the details of their report.

Lily Jiang, director of advocacy at Super Consumers Australia, says that because there is no national reporting, nobody knows how big this issue is, adding that it’s likely to only get bigger. 

“Over the next 10 years, we’ve basically got the biggest ever number of people retiring in Australia, about 2.5 million Australians. They will have the highest superannuation balances going into retirement that we’ve ever seen, we are talking about $1.5 trillion,” she says. 

“However, super funds remain asleep at the wheel. Super is the honey pot, but it’s currently the weakest link in the financial services system when it comes to scams and a system is only as strong as its weakest link,” Jiang says.

Scam Prevention Framework doesn’t cover super funds

Sitting down with ĚÇĐÄVlog and Super Consumers Australia at his office in the western suburbs of Melbourne, federal Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services Daniel Mulino highlights the government’s Scam Prevention Framework and the increased obligations that will be brought on businesses to comply with scam protections. 

The bill, which passed parliament February 2025, gives the government powers to designate sectors of the economy that have to comply with sector codes and increased efforts to monitor and prevent scams. 

So far the government has announced plans to designate social media platforms, telecommunications companies and banks. Superannuation is not on the list.

“This is not going to be straightforward work, it’s actually work which is cutting edge and is a world leading framework,” Mulino says. 

When asked why the decision was made not to designate superannuation under the framework, Mulino says designating three sectors at the same time was already going to be “quite complex”. 

“We’ll continue to look at whether or not the scams framework needs to expand,” he adds. 

Mulino’s ministerial predecessor Stephen Jones had said in November 2024 that the superannuation industry was “on notice that they will be fast followers” when it came to designation under the framework. 

We sent follow-up questions to Minister Mulino’s office about whether that position had changed; the reply was that there “isn’t any change” from the former Minister’s position.

Banks bear all the responsibility

Kathryn McKenzie, director of operations at the NSW Ageing and Disability Commission, says the agency often works with banks that proactively bring them cases of older scam victims seeking support.

She cites the case of a man with signs of dementia who successfully withdrew $150,000 from his super and was about to lose it all to scammers when his bank stepped in and blocked the transaction. 

“They are proactively looking for warning signs and acting on them before money is lost,” she says of the banks. 

Patricia Sparrow, chief executive officer of Council on the Ageing, says super funds should be made to meet the same accountability standards as other financial institutions. 

“Super funds also need to play their part in the broader scam prevention system, including taking steps to identify scams where legitimate transfers from super to a member’s bank account are later used for fraud,” she says.

A multi-layered solution would be more effective

Mulino also pointed out that in most instances the superannuation withdrawal will go to the member’s own bank account before being lost to a scammer, providing the banks, who are regulated by the prevention framework, an opportunity to catch, query and potentially prevent the suspicious transaction. 

But Jiang from Super Consumers Australia says a “multi-layed approach” would be far more effective. 

“The issue with that approach is that we are funneling all the risks and responsibilities into one part of the system (the banks), as opposed to trying to improve every part of the system where the money is being moved from point A to point B,” she says. 

“The banks are good at understanding their customers in a banking environment, but it’s the super funds who need to understand how their customers engage with the retirement system and use their retirement accounts,” says Jiang. “The banks have zero visibility of this information, it all sits with the super fund – they should be responsible for catching it from the start.” 

A spokesperson for the Super Members Council says funds are taking positive steps to proactively strengthen scam prevention measures. 

“The next critical step is to promote greater consistency across the sector, ensuring that members receive a comparable level of protection, friction, and escalation regardless of their fund. This is particularly important for high-risk transactions and for members identified as experiencing vulnerability,” the spokesperson says. 

Jiang adds it will take time for super funds to properly invest in stronger anti-scam protections and member support, but it’s vital that the government sends clear signals to industry now that firmer compliance obligations are coming soon. 

*Not her real name

The post The government needs to protect our retirement savings from scammers appeared first on ĚÇĐÄVlog.

Most of us expect to maintain our standard of living when we retire. To do this, we need to know how much to save to last us through retirement.

Super Consumers Australia has done the calculations for you.

What are retirement savings targets?

Super Consumers Australia’s Retirement Savings Targets are an independent tool to help people start working out how much they need to save for retirement. The targets are based on:

• your age
• whether you are single or in a couple 
• how much you want to spend when you are retired.

These targets show how much super you’ll need to sustain your desired standard of living until the age of 90, assuming you own your home outright or don’t pay rent or a mortgage and receive the Age Pension you’re entitled to. 

In fact, the income levels quoted are mostly comprised of the Age Pension at the low income level, are a mix of both super and the Age Pension at the medium level and are mostly made up by your super at the high level.

How we calculated the figures

Spending

We calculated the housing and non-housing spending of homeowners from the ABS Household Expenditure Survey. This is a survey of what everyday Australians spend across different income levels. We made sure they are relevant to you today by adjusting these amounts to today’s dollars by using the ABS Household Expenditure data from the latest National Accounts to incorporate a change to the bundle of goods that households are spending on, and using the ABS Age Pensioner Living Cost Index to adjust for changes in prices. 

Superannuation savings 

We modelled the ups and downs of investment returns over time and calculated a superannuation balance that you need at the start of your retirement to be 90% sure that, even given uncertain investment outcomes in retirement, you’ll have income from your super and the Age Pension to cover your spending needs each year to age 90. After age 90 you’ll still have access to the full Age Pension. 

We estimated how your super would grow by looking out how it grew over the last 25 years, playing out thousands of different versions of events that could occur in the future. 

Be guided by satisfaction rather than aspiration

We use real spending data reported by a cross section of Australians to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The low amount is the equivalent to what people in the bottom third spend each year on living costs, the medium is what people right in the middle spend and the high is what the top third spend. 

In our 2025 survey, 90% of retirees who own their home said they were satisfied or neutral about their financial situation, reinforcing that actual spending data is a reliable benchmark to help you understand what you might spend once you retire.

Find your own target

It’s worth remembering we designed our targets to get people more engaged with retirement planning. These numbers are just the first step on your journey to preparing for life after work.

The next step is to get a more personalised picture of what you need to save and how to reach your goals.

To figure out your own retirement spending and savings targets, there is a free, independent online resource called Moneysmart that can help. You can also talk to the government’s Financial Information Service over the phone on 132 300, or seek independent financial advice. 

Step 1: Do a budget

Put together a budget to find out how much you will likely need to spend in retirement using the . 

Step 2: Find your current superannuation balance

You can find your current superannuation balance on your annual member statement from your super fund, or by logging into your super fund’s website or app. You can also find your super balance on MyGov.

Step 3: Predict your retirement income

Some super funds give you an estimate of your retirement income on your annual statement, or when you login to your super fund’s website or app. If your fund doesn’t do this, you can estimate your retirement income using the .   

Step 4: Check if you are on track

Compare your budget to your predicted retirement income. Many people will find they are on track or close to it.

If you’re not, there are still steps you can take, like finding a better performing fund, making additional contributions to super, including downsizer contributions from the sale of the family home as you approach retirement.

Also, once you retire, you can access additional income from the equity in your home via the government run Home Equity Access Scheme once you’ve reached Age Pension age. 

Some Super funds provide retirement income estimates

If you don’t want to use an online tool, you may also find that your superannuation fund has done calculations for you. 

Some superannuation funds provide an estimated retirement income on your annual member statement and on their app. If you are lucky enough to be in one of these funds, then this number gives you a useful starting point for your retirement planning. 

Unfortunately not all of the superannuation funds provide this. At Super Consumers Australia we think they should. The Government has drafted guidance to superannuation funds suggesting that they should provide this information to their members.

We continue to fight to make it required for superannuation funds to help their members with this personalised estimate of retirement income.

The Age Pension makes a big difference

We assume retirees receive any Age Pension they’re eligible for. The amount you receive affects how much superannuation you’ll need:

• Low-level spenders: ~90% of income from the Age Pension
• Medium-level spenders: ~70% from the Age Pension
• High-level spenders: Mostly self-funded, with the Age Pension providing more support as you age

You can check your Age Pension eligibility on the .

Independent figures matter

Our targets are independent and based on what actual people spend. They’re not produced by a super fund or industry body with a financial interest in encouraging higher contributions.

Tough for retired renters

For free and independent information:

• If you’re struggling with debt, contact the on 1800 007 007
• Visit or the 

The post 2026 retirement savings targets for homeowners: How much do you need to retire? appeared first on ĚÇĐÄVlog.

Hobart woman Claire’s* former husband set them both up in a joint self-managed super fund (SMSF) in 2005, and pressured Claire to move all her superannuation into the fund. She had no idea that the structure would eventually be used to drain her entire retirement savings. 

“I had worked a lot of jobs and even made lots of voluntary contributions, so I had a very healthy super balance at the start,” she says. 

“When we eventually separated in 2019 I got $10,000 of his super, but compared to the hundreds of thousands in my super that had disappeared it was next to nothing,” Claire says. 

Advocates and lawyers say SMSFs and their often complex structures and lack of regulation compared to other regulated funds, leaves them open to being used as a tool of financial abuse in domestic violence situations. 

In Claire’s case, her super contributions to the SMSF went towards expensive insurance policies, taken out by her former husband on an investment property, which was eventually sold at a loss. Her husband did not contribute equally to the fund and the accountant who set up the fund never informed Claire that the insurance premiums were eroding her super. 

“I’ve lost almost everything, I have no money to retire on now,” Claire says. “I worked hard all my life, I sacrificed, and now I’m 61 and I’m going to be working the rest of my life.”

Financial abuse through SMSFs

Self-managed super funds are private super funds that you manage yourself, rather than an industry or retail fund which has more consumer protections. While it gives people greater control over how money is invested, there are big responsibilities and risks involved for the individuals. SMSF assets in Australia exceed $1 trillion and represent a quarter of the total superannuation sector. 

The circumstances in Claire’s case may be particular, but she is far from alone. 

Julie Dal Pra is a financial counsellor specialising in financial abuse in business at nonprofit organisation at Each. She says she sees complex financial structures “weaponised” and women coerced or forced into signing documents they don’t understand enough to be able to freely consent to. 

“We believe this is happening a lot more than we are seeing [in our case work], the issue is underreported. Often women may not even know it is happening until decades later,” she says. 

Dal Pra cites the case of one client whose partner drained over $500,000 from their joint SMSF by taking out loans to his own business. She didn’t even know that the documents she had been coerced into signing were to roll over her superannuation from a fund with more consumer protections to the less protected joint SMSF. 

Many super funds have policies to check with members when their funds are being transferred out of their accounts. In this case, the super fund, one of the largest in the country, failed to do so. 

“We see time and time again complex structures being weaponised and we see gatekeepers [the professionals setting up these structures] failing miserably. There needs to be traction points and we need to see systems in place to raise and act on red flags,” she says. 

Rebecca Glenn, CEO of the Centre for Women’s Economic Safety, says there are few protections available when things go wrong for women involved in SMSFs. 

“One of our big concerns is the risk of going into a self-managed super fund, meaning that you have no recourse if the perpetrator then takes control of that money. I suspect this is just the tip of the iceberg,” she says.

Multicultural communities impacted 

Financial counsellors who work with multicultural communities, like Rachna Bowman, head of financial wellbeing at South East Community Links in Melbourne, says superannuation in itself is already a complex product many migrant women don’t fully understand, let alone when SMSFs come into play. 

“Often we will find someone from the same [multicultural] community encouraging people to set up an SMSF and either acting as the broker or the financial advisor or accountant setting up the SMSF. Many people don’t understand what their rights and risks are when setting up an SMSF and the system is foreign to them,” she says. 

Lily Jiang, director of advocacy (campaigns) at Super Consumers Australia says greater government and industry efforts are required to increase community awareness on the risks of financial abuse in superannuation and SMSFs, particularly among migrant and multicultural communities. 

“This will enable frontline community organisations to better support and protect victim-survivors,” she says.

Reforms needed

Jiang says the very nature of SMSFs creates opportunities for coercion and abuse, where members are also trustees who make all the decisions about the fund. 

This is coupled with minimal oversight and limited consumer protections. The 2024 government inquiry into financial abuse highlighted this dangerous combination and the shortcomings in the SMSF system for preventing and addressing coercion and abuse. 

“The inquiry also flagged the crucial role financial advisers, planners and accountants play as frontline service providers and the need for greater professional training and ethical responsibilities with respect to financial abuse,” Jiang says.  

“For many women, superannuation is the largest and only asset they hold alone. Without concerted efforts to disrupt financial abuse in super, perpetrators will continue using structures like SMSFs as vehicles for abuse,” she says. 

Jiang says Super Consumers Australia supports the government inquiry’s recommendations to review the intersection between financial abuse and the superannuation system, particularly SMSFs.

In terms of specific prevention measures, Super Consumers is advocating for reforms requiring super funds to proactively contact members who are transferring their balance into an SMSF. This will help funds identify any red flags for potential financial abuse and provide support to people impacted. 

“We also want to see advice and accounting professions uplift their professional standards and training to ensure SMSFs are appropriate and set up in the best interest of all parties, and conduct sufficient due diligence to proactively identify and prevent financial abuse.” 

Industry responds 

Peter Burgess, CEO of the SMSF Association, says their organisation trains its members, financial advisors, accountants and lawyers to spot financial abuse risks during accreditation processes. He adds the association supports “some” of the Joint Parliamentary Committee recommendations on reforming the super system. 

“One of the commanding features of our superannuation system is its flexibility and the ability that individuals have to choose the type of superannuation fund they want to be in and the amount of control and flexibility they have over the management of their retirement savings,” Burgess says. 

“We have to be careful not to introduce new rules that unduly impact on that portability, that ability for consumers to choose their own superannuation fund and the amount of control that they want when it comes to the management of their retirement savings, but it’s also important that we have protections in place so that consumers are protected against the unscrupulous behaviour of others,” says Burgess. “It’s a balancing act.” 

Likewise, Financial Advice Association Australia (FAAA) CEO Sarah Abood says more needs to be done.

“I think there are a lot of things that can be improved,” she says. “There needs to be consistent reporting rules and guidance so financial advisors in all states have the same advice on where and when to report concerns. Currently the system is fragmented and varies from state to state.” 

However, Jiang says other sectors like banking and telecommunications have industry codes and practices to address financial abuse, but the super and advice industry is a long way behind. Greater government and industry efforts are needed to prevent and respond to financial abuse across Australia’s superannuation system.

*Not her real name

The post Self-managed super funds increasingly being used as a tool of financial abuse appeared first on ĚÇĐÄVlog.

Eight of the ten biggest super funds still require you to have a minimum balance to open what is called an ‘account-based pension’. This is what most people move their super into during the ‘retirement phase’ of the superannuation journey.

Some funds have recently moved to significantly lower the minimum amounts after the practice was called out by the advocacy group Super Consumers Australia (SCA) and media outlets, but requirements of $10,000 to $30,000 still remain. Just two of the top ten funds have no minimum requirements at all.

For those in the ‘accumulation phase’ of superannuation who are unable to open a retirement account in their current fund because of these super fund rules, it means being slugged with higher tax rates, despite the fact that these people with lower balances need to stretch each dollar further after stopping work. 

Advocates say this system needs to change and are calling for super funds to rethink and scrap account-based pension minimums altogether.

What are account-based pensions? 

Account-based pensions are designed to be a simple and flexible way to get a regular income stream in retirement. 

You can get an account-based pension from a superannuation fund. The account-based pension will make a regular deposit into your nominated bank account, and you can choose how often you get this money – monthly, quarterly or yearly. 

These accounts are designed to be flexible. You can select how much you get for each payment (as long as you meet the government’s minimum drawdown requirements). 

You can also withdraw more money at any stage – for example, if you have an unexpected expense or decide to take a holiday. Or you can close down the pension and get your remaining super as a lump sum. Your account-based pension will stop paying you once you run out of super.

Confusingly, some funds have different names for these accounts, such as ‘retirement income account’, ‘income stream’ or ‘super income stream’. 

Saving on tax

Everyone over the age of 65 (or 60 if you’ve stopped working) pays no tax on super withdrawals. But the income your superannuation makes while it’s sitting in the account (that is, the interest) will be taxed if you remain in the accumulation phase. 

That tax rate is 15%, compared to 0% in the retirement phase when your super becomes an account-based pension. That’s why for many who are no longer working and are of the eligible age, it’s beneficial to move into the retirement phase – if your super fund will let you. 

Analysis in 2024 by Super Consumers and The Conexus Institute found that a member with a $20,000 super balance could be more than $2300 worse off over the course of their retirement because of the tax liabilities of staying in the accumulation phase.

High-barrier funds lower their minimums

When Super Consumers highlighted this issue last year, Australian Super and Hesta were the funds with the highest mandatory minimums. They required a $50,000 balance to open an account-based pension.

Both funds have since told ĚÇĐÄVlog they would be dropping their minimum balance requirements to $10,000, but not to zero. 

A spokesperson for Australian Super, the largest super fund in the country, says “managing fairness and equity across the fund’s more than 3.5 million members is complex” and that any “cross-subsidy”, where the cost of servicing some members’ accounts are covered by the larger group, needed to be taken into consideration. 

They added that having no minimum increased the prospect that retirees could face “meaningful fee erosion” of their savings due to the small account balances. 

Hesta says it is “confident this change [from $50,000 to $10,000] strikes the right balance” of ensuring individual needs of customers are met. 

Super funds respond

Since the recently announced changes, the major super fund with the highest minimum balance, at $30,000, is now Australian Retirement Trust (ART). We sent questions to all the major funds with minimum requirement rules, asking them to justify the minimum. ART did not respond other than to say the policy was “currently under review”. 

Several other funds said the practice was an industry norm, something Katrina Ellis, deputy CEO of Super Consumers, says is a poor excuse.

“I don’t think it should be up to the trustees – the super funds – to decide who can move their money into the tax-free retirement phase. People should have the freedom to decide where they want to put their money and in what type of account as they move into retirement,” she says.

An issue of fairness

David Bell, executive director of The Conexus Institute, says the tax benefits of moving into an account-based pension could be several hundred dollars a year in the pocket of retirees, which is “nothing to sneeze at in a cost-of-living crisis”.

“This industry contains a lot of people who are well paid and they have to have the perspective of people who are less well off. You’ve got to be careful of making financial judgements about what matters,” he says. 

Bell says the fair approach would be for all superannuation funds to adopt a no-minimum-balance approach to opening an account-based pension.

“We have a view that no Australian should be precluded from accessing an account-based pension. Why should anyone be precluded from it? We don’t think anyone should be denied access to the full taxation benefits of the superannuation system,” he adds.

Super Consumers’ Ellis agrees with the principle. 

“Superannuation is complex, too complex, and minimum balances are making an already complex system more difficult at a time when people need to make tough decisions about their retirement,” she says.

“We need to be making it simpler, and getting rid of minimum balances would help do that.” 

The post Many retirees with low super balances are still missing out on tax benefits appeared first on ĚÇĐÄVlog.

What is a death benefit?

A death benefit is made up of any super you have left over when you die and any life insurance you had through your super fund. After you die, your super fund must pay your death benefit to one or more eligible beneficiaries. 

People who are eligible to receive your super include:

• your current spouse or partner
• your children
• someone who is in an interdependent relationship with you
• anybody financially dependent on you when you die
• your estate or legal personal representative.

What is a death benefit nomination?

Most super funds allow you  to choose who your money gets paid to when you die (your beneficiaries). This is called making a death benefit nomination. Many people assume that your will dictates where any remaining super goes, but this isn’t the case. It’s easy to overlook making a nomination and the process can be confusing. 

Binding vs non-binding nominations

Death benefit nominations in super may be binding or non-binding. A binding nomination means your super fund must pay the money to the people you nominate and in the proportion you choose. If you make a non-binding nomination, your fund will consider your wishes, but will make a decision based on what it thinks is fair based on the circumstances at the time of your death.

Each fund can decide what types of nominations to offer. Most funds offer both.

Lapsing vs non-lapsing nominations

Nominations can be lapsing or non-lapsing. A non-lapsing nomination stays in place until you make a new one or you die. Non-binding nominations usually do not lapse. A lapsing nomination can last for up to three years. You can then renew the nomination or make a new one.

Most funds only offer lapsing nominations, though non-lapsing nominations are becoming more common.

Why do nominations lapse?

The logic is that your circumstances change over time, and a person’s original nomination may no longer reflect their wishes. For example, you may have a new baby or your relationship may have ended. 

If you made a binding nomination and it lapses, but you don’t renew, most funds will treat it as a non-binding nomination.

ASIC’s 2025 death benefits review revealed that some funds take a much more proactive approach to nominations than others. Better practice is for funds to contact members several months before the nomination expires, allow members to renew online and also let them know when the nomination lapses if it’s not renewed.

In 2021, Super Consumers Australia talked to a number of funds to see what they do to remind members to renew their nominations. Some of the funds said they’re proactive about informing members if their nomination is about to lapse. MLC said it sends members a notice to renew (if appropriate), and the status of the nomination is also shown on each annual statement.

Similarly, Aware Super statements include an ‘Action alert’ if a nomination has lapsed or is about to lapse.

A spokesperson for Sunsuper (now Australian Retirement Trust) said fund members can see the status and expiry date of any nomination they’ve made on the online dashboard or in their annual statement. The fund also contacts members 90 days before a nomination lapses, and again if the nomination does lapse.

Invalid binding nominations

Super funds only have to follow a binding nomination if it’s valid at the time of your death. 

For a lapsing nomination to be valid:

• it must be in writing on paper (funds will have a form to complete)
• it must be signed by you in the presence of two witnesses
• the witnesses must be adults and they can’t be your beneficiaries
• the witnesses must both sign
• it must be dated
• the beneficiaries must be eligible to be paid the money
• the form must be complete (e.g. the different proportions need to add up to 100%)
• you must mail the completed form to your super fund.

Funds can set their own rules for non-lapsing binding nominations. These nominations are not valid until they are accepted by the fund. You will need to check with the fund to find out what is required. For example, some funds allow them to be made online. 

You can usually download a nomination form from your fund’s website or contact them for more details.

What if I want to nominate someone who isn’t eligible?

You can’t nominate just anyone to be a beneficiary. A beneficiary can only be a legal personal representative or a dependent, which includes a spouse, a child or someone you’re in an interdependent relationship with. 

This rule means you can’t nominate someone like a parent, sibling, grandchild or friend unless they’re dependent on you – or you’re dependent on them – at the time of your death.

If you want to ensure your death benefit goes to someone who isn’t a dependant, you can nominate your legal personal representative (executor of your will) to receive your death benefit, which will then get paid in accordance with your will. You may want to seek advice on drafting your will and any tax implications.

What happens if you don’t have a valid binding nomination when you die?

Most super funds have discretion to decide who to pay your death benefit to if you don’t have a valid binding nomination in place. Some funds must pay the benefit to your estate.

Having your super fund decide where your money goes may sound alarming, but there are still rules about how they make this decision.

Super funds can still only pay an eligible beneficiary if there is one. That means the fund will have to collect information about who is eligible and make a decision about what is fair in the circumstances. If more than one person makes a claim for the death benefit, the fund will have to consider each claim and will generally offer each person an opportunity to complain if they aren’t happy with the decision that the fund is proposing. 

A spokesperson for Aware Super says it’ll look at the late member’s death certificate to see if they had a spouse or any children. The fund will also use any invalid or non-binding nomination as a guide. Further, the fund can refer to any discussions the member had with a financial planner at the fund. Finally, it can contact potential beneficiaries for further information. 

“Disputed death benefits are rare,” says a spokesperson for Aware Super. “We do work hard to try and make that process as transparent and straightforward as possible.”

The approach at HOSTPLUS is similar; the fund will consider any beneficiaries it can identify from the deceased’s finances, the person’s will and any non-binding nomination they made. Finally, the fund will bear in mind “the purpose for which death benefits are provided for” in this context, which is, broadly speaking, to assist any people who were financially dependent on the person who died.  

If you die with no dependants, the money will generally go to your estate. Super funds can pay someone else if there are no eligible dependants and there is no legal personal representative.

Funds have to make the process clear

Given the importance of leaving your money to the right people after you die, Super Consumers Australia CEO Xavier O’Halloran says funds have a responsibility to help people make valid nominations.

“We had a person contact us recently who was completely confused by what her fund had told her. This led us to have a much closer look at how funds are communicating with their members about what happens to a person’s super when they die.”

Disputes over how a super fund distributes the money

If you’re unhappy with how a fund is distributing a loved one’s death benefit, you can contact the fund in the first instance. 

If you’re still not satisfied, you can complain to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA). AFCA has the power to make super funds change their decisions on who gets the money.

While the AFCA process is designed to be quicker and easier than going to court, having a tribunal dig into your family’s relationships and finances may be a stressful process. It can also take much longer than if a valid nomination was in place.

Bethany’s story

Bethany is a ĚÇĐÄVlog member who contacted us after she couldn’t get answers from her fund, Australian Super, about its death benefit nomination process.

One of the fund’s forms noted that they would use “their discretion” to distribute any remaining super if members died without a valid nomination.

“There is no explanation on the form as to what ‘their discretion’ means or if there’s a cost to it,” Bethany says. “I have no choice but to sign the form with this clause and another clause that I knowingly agree to [the fund exercising its discretion], and understand it. Well, I don’t!”

Bethany also sought more information from the fund on why it only allowed lapsing nominations. She says the only reply was “It’s a fund rule”, and the staff member she spoke to couldn’t find any information about how the fund would use its discretion.

In an email to Super Consumers Australia, an Australian Super spokesperson said it would consider the member’s wishes but would use its discretion when paying out an account balance and any insurance.

“The Fund works within the strict legal guidelines to determine who receives a payment,” the spokesperson said.

Taking the stress out of death benefit nominations

The best way to have peace of mind about where your money goes after your death is to have a valid nomination in place. 

The key things to remember are:

• you can either leave super to a dependant or to a legal personal representative (which allows for your super to become part of your will)
• your nomination may lapse (usually after three years). When this happens your nomination can still be used as a guide by your fund, but your fund doesn’t have to follow it. Renew it for greater peace of mind
• making a valid nomination can be very technical; talk to your fund if you’re unclear about the process or how to make a valid nomination.

The post Where does your superannuation go when you die? appeared first on ĚÇĐÄVlog.