Delivering Compliant General Advice on Superannuation – Part 3

Global Perspective on Conflicts in Advice

While focusing on Australia, it’s worth noting similar issues globally:

• In the UK, the regulator (FCA) expects firms even giving guidance to adhere to the new “Consumer Duty” which requires avoiding causing foreseeable harm and taking into account consumer interests. Pushing a product under the guise of guidance would likely breach this, as firms must act in good faith and avoid misleading omissions. Post-RDR (Retail Distribution Review), UK advisers can’t take commissions for investment advice (only fees), which reduced some conflict, but in the space of general “guidance” or sales, conflicts still exist (e.g. banks giving “guidance” about their own products).
• In the US, investment advisers are fiduciaries (personal advice). But for brokers, Regulation Best Interest (Reg BI) now obliges them to disclose and mitigate conflicts when making recommendations. Even in general communications, US firms must avoid false or misleading statements (SEC’s anti-fraud provisions). The US has had scandals where purported “educational seminars” were actually high-pressure sales for expensive investment products – regulators crack down on that via enforcement of fraud or misrepresentation rules. The lesson is universal: any advice – personal or general – must not be a cover for self-serving recommendations at the client’s expense.

In summary, managing conflicts of interest in general advice is about being transparent and fair. An adviser should always ask: “If I were in the audience and had no affiliation, would I feel this information is being presented straight, or is something being pushed on me without clear reason?” If the latter, adjust your approach. By managing conflicts diligently, advisers uphold the integrity of their general advice and protect themselves from regulatory risk.

Global Regulatory Comparisons and Best Practices

While this module is centered on Australian requirements (given the target audience of Australian financial planners), it is instructive to compare how different jurisdictions handle the division between general and personal advice. Many of the core principles are similar internationally: regulators want to ensure that when a financial recommendation is personalized, the consumer is protected by higher standards, and if it’s not personalized, consumers aren’t misled into over-relying on it. Here, we’ll briefly look at the approach in the United Kingdom and United States, and touch on global best practice frameworks, to glean insights that can inform Australian advisers’ approach to general advice.

United Kingdom: The Advice vs Guidance Boundary

In the UK, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) regulates financial advice. The terminology differs from Australia’s “general vs personal advice” – they often speak of “regulated advice” (or a personal recommendation) versus “guidance” (or information).

• Personal Recommendation (Regulated Advice): Under UK rules (largely shaped by the EU’s MiFID regulations), giving a personal recommendation about a financial product to a retail client is considered regulated investment advice. This is analogous to personal advice in Australia. It requires the firm to be authorized, the adviser to have certain qualifications, and triggers suitability obligations (they must ensure the recommendation is suitable for the client after obtaining information about their situation). For example, telling a client “I recommend you transfer your pension into Fund X” would be a personal recommendation – it’s specific to them and thus regulated advice.
• Guidance (Generic Advice/Information): Anything that falls short of a personal recommendation is often termed “guidance.” This could include general information about products, risk factors to consider, calculators, etc. If an interaction steers a customer to consider an option but does not explicitly recommend a specific course of action for that individual, it might be classified as guidance. For instance, a bank might provide an online tool that suggests an asset allocation based on age and risk tolerance – if it’s done in a generic way without saying “we recommend you specifically buy Fund A,” the bank might argue it’s just guidance or information.

However, the boundary can be blurry, and the FCA has been actively reviewing it. In fact, the UK has been looking to make it easier for firms to give more help to consumers without crossing into regulated advice, to fill the “advice gap” (many people won’t pay for full advice but need more than nothing). In 2023, the FCA issued guidance to clarify what is considered advice vs guidance, providing examples: e.g., explaining options in a pension plan with pros/cons (without steering to one) is guidance, whereas saying “Given your situation, Option B is best for you” would be advice.

Disclosure and consumer understanding: In the UK, firms providing guidance still must be clear with customers about the nature of the service. The FCA’s new Consumer Duty (effective 2023) requires firms to ensure retail customers get communications they can understand and that equip them to make effective decisions. This means if you’re giving guidance, you should explain that you’re not making a personal recommendation and that the customer needs to decide or seek advice for personal recommendations. Similar to Australia’s general advice warning concept, although the UK doesn’t have a prescribed “guidance warning”, the spirit is similar – do not give the false impression that something is a personal recommendation when it isn’t.

Example: The UK’s Money and Pensions Service (government-backed) provides free guidance – they explicitly say they offer “information and guidance” not “advice.” They define advice as a recommendation of a specific product or course for you, which they won’t do.

Best practice from UK perspective: Some best practices include:

• Using decision trees or tools that educate rather than flat-out recommend, so individuals feel guided but know the final call is theirs.
• Clear labeling: e.g., call it “Pensions Guidance Session” vs “Pensions Advice” to set expectation.
• The FCA has also emphasised the need to manage conflicts in guidance; even if not advice, if a firm’s guidance always nudges to their own products, that could be an issue under the Consumer Duty (outcomes could be poor for consumers if not well managed).

United States: Investment Education vs Advice

The US regulatory environment distinguishes between investment advice (which triggers fiduciary duty if by an investment adviser) or suitability obligations if by a broker) and more general “investment education” or commentary.

• Investment Advisers vs Broker-Dealers: In the US, an Investment Adviser (typically regulated by the SEC or state regulators if smaller) owes a fiduciary duty to clients – they give advice (usually personalized) for a fee. On the other side, Broker-Dealers historically gave recommendations incidental to product sales and were held to a lesser “suitability” standard (now enhanced by Regulation Best Interest for retail clients). The lines have blurred, but essentially if someone is giving continuous advice for a fee, they likely have to register as an adviser and act in the client’s best interest (similar to personal advice concept). If they are a salesperson (broker) who gives recommendations, they still must not recommend unsuitable products and must disclose conflicts.
• What counts as advice requiring registration? The SEC has guidance that “impersonal advice” (like publishing a newsletter with stock tips that is not tailored to specific subscriber needs) doesn’t require the publisher to register as an investment adviser, thanks to the so-called publisher’s exemption (First Amendment protections for financial publications). Also, giving purely educational seminars does not by itself force registration, as long as you’re not forming a client relationship or giving individualized plans. The Department of Labor (for retirement accounts like 401(k)s) has at times provided guidelines on what is considered “investment education” vs “investment advice.” For instance, providing general information about asset allocation or the benefits of diversification to plan participants is considered education and not fiduciary advice, as long as you don’t mention specific investment products available in the plan. Once you start suggesting “Invest 20% in Fund X of your plan,” you’ve likely given advice.
• General financial guidance in media: The US has a culture of financial personalities (think Suze Orman, Dave Ramsey) giving broad advice on TV/radio. They operate under free speech but also need to be careful not to form actual advisor-client relationships in those interactions. They typically stick to general principles (“Pay down debt!” “Save 15% for retirement!”) and carry disclaimers (“I’m not your personal financial advisor”).

Regulatory actions: The US SEC and FINRA have pursued cases where something presented as generic was actually personalized advice or where brokers called something “education” but it was a sales pitch. One area of note was the crackdown on “free lunch seminars” offered to retirees – often those were sold as educational but ended in pushing high-commission products like annuities. Regulators issued alerts and guidance that firms must be honest in marketing these seminars and not misrepresent sales pitches as unbiased education. Firms hosting such seminars have to make sure any materials used are fair and balanced (FINRA has advertising rules for that).

Reg BI (Best Interest): As of 2020, brokers in the US under Reg BI must act in the best interest of retail customers when making a recommendation. If a broker tries to avoid Reg BI by couching a recommendation as just general info, they might still get in trouble if it’s deemed a recommendation. Therefore, US brokers now often give a disclosure when they are not providing personalized recommendations. Similarly to the Aussie general advice warning, the SEC introduced a Form CRS (Client Relationship Summary) that firms must give to retail investors outlining whether they are giving monitoring/advice or just effecting transactions, how they’re paid, etc., so clients know what kind of service they’re getting.

Common Threads and Best Practices Globally

Across these jurisdictions:

• Clarity to Consumers: It’s paramount everywhere to clearly communicate the nature of the service – whether it’s full advice or just guidance. All regulators want consumers not to be misled. So one best practice is to use simple language and maybe even multiple reminders about the scope (not just one fine-print disclaimer).
• Consumer Protection vs Access: There’s a balancing act. Heavy regulation of personalized advice often leads to an advice gap (some people can’t afford or access it), so regulators are exploring how to let more general help be given without undermining consumer protection. Australia’s Quality of Advice Review (2022) is recommending broadening personal advice and adjusting rules (potentially removing the general advice warning requirement, for instance, because it might confuse people). The UK’s Advice/Guidance review similarly wants to allow more guided help (like limited advice for certain straightforward needs) with slightly lower regulatory hurdles, to help people make decisions without full fat advice processes. So the trend is towards making advice more accessible but still keeping guardrails.
• As an adviser, being aware of these trends means you should stay flexible. The definitions of general vs personal might evolve (e.g., Australia may eventually rename or refine “general advice” because consumer research showed the term itself is problematic). Keep up to date with any changes in law or industry standards resulting from these reviews.
• Documentation and Disclosure Norms: Globally, providing a disclosure document similar to FSG or Form CRS or a terms of service is considered good practice so the client knows what they’re (not) getting. Always document what you did to stay on safe side.
• Ethics and Education: Professional ethics codes (like CFP Board in the US, CISI in UK, FPA/FASEA in Australia, CFA Institute globally) all emphasize putting clients first, being honest, and not misrepresenting your services. Adhering to these high-level principles will usually steer an adviser right, even if specific rules differ.

International Regulatory Bodies and Guidelines

Beyond national regulators, international bodies like IOSCO (International Organization of Securities Commissions) and the OECD have guidelines on financial advice and education. For example, IOSCO has principles on suitability and conflicts for investment services, and the OECD has published best practices for financial education programs. These often underscore the importance of:

• Clearly distinguishing marketing from advice.
• Ensuring advisors are properly qualified.
• The role of disclosure but also acknowledging disclosure alone isn’t a panacea (consumers might ignore it – so sometimes structural measures are needed to avoid conflicts entirely).

One interesting global note is some countries have effectively no concept of “general advice” as a regulated service – it’s either you’re advising (and then you owe duties) or you’re just selling with caveat emptor. Australia’s “general advice” category has been unique and is now being reconsidered. The trend might be moving more towards either calling it what it is (“marketing/information”) or wrapping more interactions under the umbrella of advice but with proportional requirements. As an adviser doing CPD, it’s wise to know these shifts – it could shape how you practice in the near future.

Best Practice Takeaway: No matter the country, if you’re giving broad financial information:

• Make sure the audience understands whether or not it is tailored for them.
• Be truthful, balanced, and thorough in the information.
• Avoid implying any guarantees or personal assurances when there are none.
• When in doubt, err on the side of treating it as advice with duty, or escalate to personal advice rather than straddle a gray line uncomfortably.

Bringing this back to Australia – Australian financial planners can learn from the global context that clients universally appreciate clarity and honesty. By being upfront, following the rules, and focusing on genuinely helping the client (even within the limits of general advice), advisers not only remain compliant but also build a positive reputation which is beneficial in any regulatory environment.

Case Studies and Examples

To cement the understanding of the concepts covered, let’s examine a couple of case studies and practical examples that illustrate the boundary between general and personal advice, the consequences of missteps, and how a skilled adviser can handle tricky situations. These examples will show both “what not to do” and “best practice” in delivering compliant general advice on superannuation.

Case Study 1: Westpac’s Superannuation Roll-over Campaign (When General Advice Crossed the Line)

One of the most notable real-world examples in Australia is the case involving Westpac subsidiaries around 2016-2018, which ended up in the High Court in 2021. Westpac’s superannuation arm conducted a campaign called the “Super Activation” campaign.

What Happened:
Westpac, through call center staff, contacted thousands of members of Westpac-owned super funds who also had other super accounts elsewhere. The callers’ aim was to persuade these members to roll over their other superannuation accounts into their Westpac account (thus consolidating with Westpac’s fund). The calls followed a script that included questions and prompts to get the member thinking about benefits of consolidating. Importantly, the staff made statements like “We have noticed you have multiple super accounts – we can help you bring them together” and asked things like “What do you look for in a super fund? Is it performance, fees, something else?” – then upon the member’s response, they’d affirm “You know, a lot of people like you value low fees [or whatever] as well.” This technique, as later described in court, built rapport and “social proofing.” At the end of the call, they would often say, effectively, “Based on what we discussed, I can complete that consolidation for you now over the phone.”

All calls started with a brief general advice disclaimer (“I’m not considering your personal circumstances, but…” etc.), as Westpac’s position was that this was only general advice – a general offer to help consolidate, not specific financial advice. The callers did not delve into detailed personal financial advice territory like retirement goals, etc. They mainly stuck to the selling point that consolidating is beneficial to avoid multiple fees and had the convenience of doing it immediately.

Why It Went Wrong:
ASIC took Westpac to court, arguing that these calls were not merely general advice or factual information but had actually crossed into personal advice territory. Why? Because a reasonable person in the members’ position would expect that the caller had considered their personal circumstances (since they specifically talked about that member’s accounts, their needs—like what’s important to them in a fund—and offered a recommendation to consolidate right now). In essence, ASIC said: you can’t just slap a “general advice” disclaimer on a call and then go on to basically advise someone to take an action with their retirement savings that is specific to them (roll over your accounts now with us) and claim it’s not personal advice.

The Federal Court initially had sided partly with Westpac (saying there wasn’t sufficient “consideration” of personal circumstances to call it personal advice, though they did find Westpac failed to act efficiently, honestly, fairly). But on appeal, the Full Federal Court and then the High Court (the highest court in Australia) unanimously agreed with ASIC: these calls were personal advice. They pointed out several things:

• The disclaimer at the start was not enough to override the overall impression created by the call content and tone, which was tailored to the member (using their personal account info and motives).
• The fact that Westpac offered to do the rollover “free of charge” in the call didn’t negate personal advice; members might reasonably assume this was part of service they’re entitled to (so it still felt like advice in their interest).
• The callers asked about what the member’s objectives/concerns were (like what do you value in a fund), and even if they didn’t produce a detailed financial plan, that act itself is considering an aspect of the person’s needs or at least giving the impression of it.
• The outcome was a clear recommendation directed to that person: consolidate your accounts (with Westpac’s fund).

Consequences:
As a result, Westpac had provided personal advice without complying with personal advice obligations (they didn’t do best interest duty analysis, no SOA was given, and crucially, Westpac’s license for that part of the business apparently only covered general advice, not personal advice to those retail clients). This was a breach of the law. The High Court’s decision led to Westpac’s subsidiaries paying $10.5 million in penalties. Also, they had to contact affected customers and there were broader industry reverberations – it served as a cautionary tale that the regulator and courts will look at substance over form.

Lessons Learned:
For advisers, this case underscores:

• A general advice disclaimer will not protect you if your conduct effectively amounts to personal advice. It’s not a magic shield; what matters is what a reasonable client would perceive.
• If you have any individualized interaction (knowing specific things about the client and using that in your recommendation), you’re likely in personal advice territory.
• The cost of getting this wrong can be huge – fines, legal costs, and reputational damage. Westpac likely also lost trust among some customers who felt they were subject to a sales campaign under the guise of advice.
• Compliance training in many institutions was subsequently tightened to ensure staff do not inadvertently cross the line. For example, scripts might be modified to be more generic, or staff are instructed not to actually execute a product change in the same interaction as giving info (to avoid that implicit recommendation/decision moment).

Case Study 2: Successful Execution of a General Advice Seminar

Consider a positive example, a fictional scenario combining best practices:

Scenario: FuturePlanners Pty Ltd is a financial planning firm. They decide to host a free “Superannuation Essentials” webinar for the public as a way to build goodwill and maybe attract some clients. The webinar is advertised as covering “how super works, investment choices, and common strategies to boost your retirement savings – general advice only.”

What They Do Right:

• Clear Marketing: All promotion clearly states it’s educational and general in nature. When participants sign up online, they receive a confirmation email with the firm’s FSG attached and a note, “During this session we will provide general financial advice. This won’t take into account your personal circumstances. If you’d like personal advice tailored to you, we offer free initial consultations separately.”
• Webinar Introduction: The presenter (a qualified financial planner) starts the webinar by introducing herself and the firm (establishing who’s speaking, under what licence) and explicitly gives the general advice warning in a friendly tone. For example: “Welcome! In this webinar I’ll be talking about super strategies generally – I don’t know your individual situations, so please remember this is not personal financial advice for you specifically. The ideas are to help you understand super better. You might need further advice to see what’s right for your own circumstances.”
• Content Delivery: The webinar flows through topics like how super contributions work, how investing in super is different from outside (tax benefits), risk vs return for different age groups, etc. The presenter uses slides with charts showing, for instance, growth of $10k over 30 years in different asset allocations (purely illustrative numbers). She frequently uses inclusive language: “Many people in their 20s do X… If you’re closer to retirement, Y is often a priority…” etc. No specific product is pushed. She mentions general product types (industry fund vs retail fund vs SMSF) and gives a neutral overview of each.
• Managing Questions: Participants type questions in a Q&A box. One asks, “What’s the best super fund to be in?” The presenter handles it by saying: “That’s a common question. There isn’t a single ‘best’ fund for everyone. It depends on things like fees, performance, services, which vary. A good approach is to compare a few high-performing, low-cost funds. Regulators have tools like the ATO’s super fund comparison website where you can see how funds stack up. So do check that out. If you want, we can also chat after this about how to compare funds – but I can’t pick one for you without knowing a lot more about you, which goes beyond today’s general advice scope.”
  Another question: “I’m 55, thinking to retire at 60, how much should I have in super by now?” She answers generally: “Retirement adequacy is very individual – it depends on what income you’d like and other assets. As a general guide, some suggest having about 7-8 times your annual salary by retirement. At 55, you might aim for a certain multiple of salary now. But again, it’s just a rough rule of thumb. There are calculators from ASIC’s MoneySmart where you can input your details and get an idea. This might be a case where a one-on-one conversation could help refine that number for you.”
• Conclusion: She ends the webinar thanking everyone and reiterating: “We covered a lot generally. I hope you found it informative. Remember, these were general tips – before you make any big decisions, consider your own needs or get personal advice. We’re offering a complimentary 30-minute consult if you’d like to discuss your situation – that would be personal advice and we’d go through your specifics.” She provides a link to book that, but also encourages them to use the information on their own if they prefer.
• Follow-Up: Participants get a follow-up email with a brief summary of key points (like a one-page PDF: “Top 5 Super Tips from the Webinar”), again containing the disclaimer in it. It also lists resources (links to MoneySmart calculators, ATO comparison site, etc.), reinforcing the educational value. And it includes the offer to book a personal consult (entirely optional).

Why This is Compliant and Effective:
FuturePlanners managed to provide a lot of useful content without giving personal recommendations. The presenter acknowledged limitations, answered questions in a generalized fashion, and whenever touching something specific, she gave either a generic rule of thumb or directed to tools/personal advice rather than saying “you should do X.” The conflict of interest is minimal here (the firm’s interest is to perhaps gain clients, which she did by offering a consult, but she wasn’t biased towards any product and disclosed the nature of that follow-up would be personal advice). Also, by referencing reputable third-party tools (like government websites), she added credibility and neutrality to the guidance.

From a CPD perspective, this case demonstrates how to run an educational session that meets compliance and also serves clients’ interest (it genuinely educated them). It shows that compliant general advice can still be valuable – it doesn’t have to be so watered down to avoid personal advice that it becomes useless. There’s a fine balance, but it’s achievable with planning and skill.

Example 3: One-on-One Conversation Kept to General Advice

Not all general advice scenarios are seminars; sometimes an adviser might have an initial phone call or a free introductory meeting where the client is not engaged for personal advice yet, so only general advice can be given. Here’s how one might go:

Scenario: A potential client, Jane, calls a financial planner: “I just inherited $50,000 and wonder if I should put it into super. Can I get some advice on that?” Jane hasn’t engaged the planner formally yet – this is an exploratory call.

Adviser’s Response:
The adviser first provides the FSG via email (or directs her to their website for it) and says on the phone: “I’m happy to discuss some general points, but I want to let you know I can’t give personal advice without a fuller picture of your situation. Today I’ll keep it general.”

Jane explains a bit about her scenario, maybe giving her age and that she has a mortgage too. The adviser listens but still treats his responses as general: “Thanks for sharing that. In general, whether to put a lump sum into super or pay off a mortgage is a common consideration. Let me outline the factors people usually look at: Super contributions (if eligible) could be tax-advantaged – for instance, if you put $50k into super as a non-concessional contribution, you won’t get tax on deposit, and future earnings in super are taxed at 15%, which might be lower than your personal tax if you invested outside. However, the money then is stuck in super until you retire/meet a condition of release. On the other hand, paying down a mortgage gives you a guaranteed return equal to your interest rate – you save that interest, and it’s like a risk-free gain. The decision often depends on your mortgage rate, your time to retirement, and comfort with having money locked away. Many people with extra funds might do a bit of both: e.g., pay some off the mortgage to reduce debt, and contribute some to super for long-term growth. But the exact split would depend on personal factors like interest rate, any other debts, or if you need access to money.”

Notice he gave useful information and a framework to think about the question, but he didn’t say, “Jane, you should do X.” He kept saying “many people… depends on…” etc. If Jane presses, “What do you think I should do?” the adviser should politely reiterate, “I’d really need to analyze your whole situation to answer that properly – that would be personal advice. I can offer you a meeting to go through this in detail, where I’d gather information and then give you a specific recommendation in a Statement of Advice. Until then, I can’t responsibly say exactly what you should do. But I hope the general info I provided is a helpful starting point.”

Jane can then decide to engage the adviser for personal advice or not. In this scenario, the adviser managed to demonstrate expertise and provide value (she learned about tax vs mortgage interest trade-off, etc.) without crossing the compliance line. Jane was clearly informed that for a real recommendation, formal engagement is needed.

This approach not only keeps the adviser safe legally, but also often impresses potential clients – it shows professionalism and that the adviser won’t shoot from the hip without doing due diligence.

These case studies underscore a few key takeaways:

• When in doubt, don’t personalize – generalize.
• Use disclaimers and explanations liberally, not just as a one-time checkmark.
• A misstep can have serious consequences (Westpac case) – but doing it right not only avoids trouble, it can actually enhance your credibility and lead to better client relationships (as seen with FuturePlanners and the one-on-one scenario).
• Always think from the perspective: “If a regulator replayed this interaction, would they say I was effectively giving a personal recommendation?” If yes, adjust your approach.

Conclusion

Delivering compliant general advice on superannuation requires a blend of regulatory knowledge, clear communication, ethical practice, and client-focused thinking. Throughout this module, we examined the fine line between general and personal advice and emphasized why respecting that boundary is not only a legal necessity but also crucial for maintaining client trust and delivering value.

For financial planners in Australia, the landscape of advice is evolving – with ongoing reforms and heightened consumer expectations. However, certain fundamentals remain constant:

• Clarity and Transparency: Always be upfront with your audience about what you are (and are not) providing. Use the required general advice warning as an opportunity to set the right expectations. Clients appreciate honesty, and this clarity protects you as well.
• Strong Knowledge Base: General advice, while not tailored, should still be high-quality, accurate, and insightful. Mastery of superannuation rules, strategies, and current regulations allows you to speak confidently and correctly on broad concepts. This competence builds your credibility. Staying updated (CPD helps here) ensures the information you share is current – critical since superannuation laws and market conditions do change frequently.
• Communication Skills: The way advice is communicated can make all the difference. We learned to use inclusive language, avoid personal pronouns that target an individual, and present information in an accessible manner (short paragraphs, bullet points, visual aids, etc., as we did in this text for readability). Good communication also means listening – even in general advice contexts, listening to the group’s reactions or the generic questions asked helps you address their needs better without individualizing.
• Documentation and Process: Even though general advice doesn’t need the paperwork of personal advice, a disciplined approach to providing FSGs, documenting sessions, and following compliance checklists will make your practice robust. These processes become habits that safeguard you and ensure clients are informed at each step.
• Ethical Conduct and Client-Centric Mindset: Perhaps the most important thread is keeping the client’s best interest in mind, even when not legally mandated as in personal advice. In general advice, this translates to giving information that is fair, not misleading, and truly aimed at helping the audience make better decisions for themselves. Avoiding conflicts or managing them transparently is a part of this. When clients sense that your general advice is genuinely meant to educate rather than sell, they value it more – and ironically, that often leads to better business outcomes (like clients seeking you out for further personal advice when needed, because they trust you).

By mastering the ability to communicate superannuation knowledge generally and compliantly, advisers can reach a broader audience and empower more people to make sound decisions about their retirement savings. Not every Australian will seek personal financial advice, but through compliant general advice – whether in seminars, articles, or initial conversations – advisers can still positively impact financial literacy and outcomes, while staying within the guardrails of regulation.

In practice, delivering compliant general advice is a skill that improves with experience and vigilance. Advisors should continuously reflect on their practice: Did I keep that session truly general? Did the attendees gain something useful without being misled? How could I explain that concept more clearly next time? Seeking feedback and learning from each session will refine your technique.

Lastly, staying tuned to regulatory developments is key. For instance, if proposals from the Quality of Advice Review lead to changes (like possibly removing the formal general advice warning requirement or redefining personal advice), advisers will need to adapt their approach accordingly. The principles we covered – clear distinctions, good disclosures, and ethical conduct – will remain a solid foundation even as specific rules shift.

In conclusion, by adhering to legal requirements, following best practices from global insights, and prioritizing clear and honest communication, Australian financial planners can confidently provide general advice on superannuation that is accurate, compliant, and genuinely valuable to a broad client audience. This strengthens the adviser’s professional reputation and contributes to better financial outcomes for the community, all while mitigating the risks of regulatory breaches.

References:

1. Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), Section 766B – Meaning of Financial Product Advice, Personal Advice, and General Advice.
2. ASIC Regulatory Guide 244: Giving Information, General Advice and Scaled Advice (December 2012).
3. ASIC Media Release 19-069MR (28 March 2019), ‘Mind the gap’ – consumers confusing different types of financial advice, reporting on ASIC Report 614 findings on consumer understanding of general vs personal advice.
4. High Court of Australia [2021] HCA 3, Westpac Securities Administration Ltd v ASIC, clarifying the test for personal advice and confirming that Westpac’s super consolidation calls constituted personal advice.
5. ASIC Media Release 21-221MR (24 August 2021), Westpac subsidiaries to pay $10.5 million penalty for breaches of best interests duty, detailing the penalties following the High Court decision.
6. Financial Conduct Authority (UK) – Guidance Consultation on Retail Investment Advice: Clarifying the boundaries between advice and guidance (2023), and related FCA communications on the new Consumer Duty and its impact on advice/guidance.
7. Money Advice Service / MoneyHelper (UK) – Definitions of financial guidance vs advice as provided to consumers (various online publications).
8. U.S. Department of Labor – Investment Advice Rule (particularly discussions on the definition of fiduciary advice vs investment education in retirement plans, e.g., DOL’s 2016 fiduciary rule (since modified) and related guidance).
9. CFA Institute Code of Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct (2020 Edition), in particular Standard V(B): Communication with Clients and Prospective Clients (emphasizing clear communication and distinguishing fact from opinion), and Standard VI(A): Disclosure of Conflicts.
10. FASEA Code of Ethics (Australia) – especially Standard 3 (Conflict of interest) and Standard 5 (Clarity in service offering and client understanding).
11. ASIC Regulatory Guide 181: Licensing: Managing Conflicts of Interest (providing guidance on AFS licensees’ obligations to identify and manage conflicts).
12. ASIC Regulatory Guide 234: Advertising Financial Products and Services (guidelines for clear, balanced information in promotions, relevant by analogy to making sure general advice isn’t misleading).
13. Allens Law Firm Insight (Feb 2023), Quality of Advice Review Final Report – a snapshot, summarizing recommendations including changes to the definition of personal and general advice in Australia.
14. ASIC’s Moneysmart website – General and Personal Financial Advice page (consumer education on the difference, including obligations of advisers in each case).