18/05/2023
The current scandal engulfing the BIG 4 consulting firm PWC has shone a spotlight on why receiving advice from a conflicted source is fraught with danger.
For anyone not familiar with the current scandal, PWC was engaged by the Australian government to provide professional consultation and advice on how to get global companies such as Google, Apple and Microsoft to pay their fair share of taxes for business carried out in Australia.
These global companies happened to be clients of PWC as well so one of the partners at PWC saw an opportunity to profit from the inside information they collected from the Australian government by charging consulting fees to these large companies on how they could avoid paying tax under the proposed tax changes.
Having worked as a contractor for another Big 4 consulting firm in 2018 I witnessed firsthand the obvious conflicts of interest in their business model so it wouldn't surprise me if these dodgy business practices were more widespread.
So how does this relate to superannuation and retirement?
Prior to 2018, banks were the main employers of financial advisers who were incentivised to act in the interest of their employers over the interest of clients/customers.
This conflicted remuneration model led to wide-spread misconduct which was uncovered during the 2018 Royal Commission into superannuation, banking and financial services.
Fast forward to 2023.
Banks no longer employ financial advisers, while superannuation funds continue to employ more and more financial advisers.
When you are an employee financial adviser of a superannuation fund (or bank) you are inherently conflicted - there is no way around it.
It is very difficult to provide financial advice that is in the best interest of your client (as is required under law) when you are under pressure to recommend the in-house products of your employer.
Cheap/free advice from your super fund or any other conflicted source may save you money in the short-term but could be very costly over the longer-term.