Judith Fiander

Australians considering charitable giving before the end of the financial year should not be put off by uncertainty surrounding the proposed tax changes in the Federal Budget, Judith Fiander, Australian Philanthropic Services (APS) CEO, says.

Fiander says the ongoing consultation and political process around announced budget measures actually reinforces the value of making a tax-deductible charitable contribution before June 30.

“Although it is not clear, and will not be clear, until the political process around the various measures and what they mean for personal tax circumstances is complete, the advantage of tax deductible giving via a giving structure is you can make that gift now, and have that tax deduction at your disposal for as long as the next five years.”

Fiander says that by contributing to a structured giving vehicle such as a private ancillary fund (PAF) or a public ancillary fund (PuAF) before the end of the financial year, donors can secure a tax deduction now while retaining flexibility to apply that deduction over a five-year period.

“When the tax arrangements become clearer, donors will be able to deploy that deduction in the most tax-efficient way,” Fiander says.

Charities across Australia continue to face growing demand driven by cost-of-living pressures, inflation and broader economic uncertainty. Structured giving provides charities with a more reliable source of funding, helping organisations plan programs, deliver essential services and invest in longer-term projects.

“Charities need certainty just as much as donors do,” Fiander says.

“Structured philanthropy can support multi-year giving commitments and create sustainable revenue streams that help organisations make a greater impact.

APS is also encouraging greater awareness of the tax advantages of giving among high-net-worth Australians, with Australian Taxation Office data showing that around half of Australians earning more than $1 million annually claim no charitable donation deductions.

“That shows some people with the capacity to give are not, and that’s a missed opportunity both for the community and for donors themselves.”

Fiander says now is the time for people who have something to give, whatever that might look like – whether it’s time, money, labour or expertise – to step forward.

“With June 30 rapidly approaching, there is still time to make a charitable donation and gain a tax deduction.

“Every day is a good day for giving. But the days between now and June 30 are exceptional days for giving.”

The post Federal budget uncertainty strengthens the case for June 30 giving appeared first on AdviserVoice.

As Australia’s population ages, the demand for aged care advice will inevitably surge.

Data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) shows that Australia’s population aged 65 and over is projected to reach 22% – or 8.8 million people – by 2057, reinforcing the need for specialist aged care advice. This article, proudly sponsored by GSFM, explores some of the issues around ethics and providing financial advice to ageing Australians.

Australia is an ageing nation. One in five Australians are aged 65 and over^[1]. That does not include the tail end of the ‘baby boomers’, nor Gen X snapping on their heels. The percentage of the population aged 65 and over has increased from 12% at 30 June 1994 to 17% 30 June 2024^[2].

Driven by improved nutrition, medical advancements and healthier lifestyles, Australian life expectancy now extends well into the 80s, underscoring a critical need for structured aged care advice. However, while post-retirement financial planning traditionally prioritises wealth decumulation and immediate lifestyle funding, long-term aged care strategies remain significantly underemphasised.

The aged care system is a complex web of providers, agencies and changing regulations that often overwhelms families during a period of high vulnerability. This makes access to accurate, conflict-free professional advice vital to safeguarding the best interests of older Australians.

The inherent complexity of the Australian aged care system has been amplified by the introduction of the Aged Care Act 2024 and its funding reforms that came into effect on 1 November 2025. In the wake of these reforms, Australians will increasingly rely on personalised guidance to make informed decisions tailored to their unique family circumstances. Professional support will be essential in helping Australians navigate their aged care funding options effectively.^[3]

Aged care in Australia

While the aged care system is designed to support older Australians, it remains riddled with complexities and is challenging for families to navigate. These complexities make it difficult to both access the required support and understand the financial intricacies of that support.

There are two main pathways in the system, at-home support and residential aged care, funded by a mix of government support and personal contributions. However, it’s not as simple as making an application – the federal government’s own report, released the same day as the federal budget, revealed that it takes, on average, 12 months to get a spot in an aged care home or secure at-home support^[4].

Further, senate estimates figures show that in December 2025, there were more than 230,000 Australians currently on the wait list for aged care, either for an assessment or a package at their approved level.

Care in the home – designed to help older Australians stay independent for longer, the Support at Home program (formerly In-Home Care program) provides a coordinated care plan tailored to meet the recipient’s specific needs. While it sounds great in theory, the application process is onerous and there’s a substantial waiting list for both assessment and allocation of a package.

Care in a residential aged care facility – this provides accommodation, daily care and lifestyle services within an aged care home. This can be a permanent move or a short-term stay (respite care). Permanent care is intended for those who can no longer live at home due to increased care needs.

As most aged care advice focuses on access to and funding residential aged care, in-home support services are not discussed further in this article.

A major reason people access aged care advice is the complexity of the fee structures associated with residential aged care. The following provides a brief overview of the fee structure, which – like many government programs – is subject to regular review and change. Major changes were implemented as part of the Aged Care Act 2024. The same fee structure is applicable whether the aged care facility is run by local or state government, a charitable organisation or corporate.

Aged care fees and the Aged Care Act 2024

The overhaul of residential aged care fees in the Aged Care Act 2024 represented a significant structural shift. The rationale for these changes stems directly from the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety and the findings of the Aged Care Taskforce. The core objective was to create a dual-benefit solution: protecting the financial dignity of older Australians while ensuring the entire aged care sector does not collapse under escalating costs^[5].

The major change to aged care fees introduced by the 2024 Act is drawing a line between what the government should pay for and what the individual should pay for.

The Act established that health and clinical care is a universal right. Therefore, the government funds 100 percent of clinical care, which includes nursing, medical management and allied health.

However, everyday living and accommodation costs are co-contributed; the rationale is that whether you live in your own home or a residential facility, you still have to pay for food, laundry, utilities and rent.

So, under the new act, the former ‘Means Tested Care Fee’ has been split into two distinct, means-tested categories:

• The hotelling contribution – a co-contribution to daily lifestyle and facility operational costs, capped at $22.15 per day
• The non-clinical care contribution – this covers personal care, such as showering, dressing and leisure activities, capped at $107.32 per day.

A significant change is the introduction of measures to inject capital directly into the infrastructure of aged care homes:

• RAD retention – aged care providers are now permitted to retain a small portion of a resident’s Refundable Accommodation Deposit (RAD). Providers can retain two percent per year for up to five years, a total maximum of 10 percent of the RAD. Given many RADs are over one million dollars, this can represent a sizable amount. This only applies to people entering aged care from 1 November 2025.
• Increased price caps – the maximum room price cap was raised from $550,000 to approximately $750,000 and indexed to inflation. This is the maximum price a provider can charge without seeking approval from the Pricing Authority.

The Act also introduced the ‘no worse off’ principle; anyone who was already in residential care prior to 12 September 2024 is strictly grandfathered. Their contribution arrangements stay exactly the same. As with any change, there are a lot of caveats around the new payments, and which payment applies to what person – this only adds to the already complex structures.

What are the costs?

The following is a summary of the primary aged care fees – specifically, the cost of the room. The reality involves far more complexity and will vary from client to client. This illustrates the importance of personal finance advice when it comes to accessing aged care services.

Prior to moving into a residential aged care home, the resident must agree on a room price with the provider. It’s important to note that prices will vary from one provider to the next. Whether an individual qualifies for government assistance to cover these accommodation costs, in full or in part, is determined by a formal means assessment.

There are three options for payment.

A refundable lump sum (RAD or RAC)

There are 2 types of lump sum, depending on the outcome of your client’s means assessment:

• Refundable accommodation deposit (RAD): This is when your client pays the full amount and is the accommodation price agreed with the provider.
• Refundable accommodation contribution (RAC): This is when the government helps with the costs and is worked out by the provider based on the daily accommodation contribution (DAC).

It is important to know that a refundable lump sum is counted as an asset in the aged care means assessment, even in the event it is paid by a family member. This means that paying a lump sum can affect overall fees charged by the provider.

A daily payment (DAP or DAC)

There are two types of daily payments, depending on the outcome of the client’s means assessment:

• Daily accommodation payment (DAP): this is when your client pays the full amount themselves and is the accommodation price agreed with your provider. Daily accommodation payments are indexed on 20 March and 20 September each year.
• Daily accommodation contribution (DAC): this is when the government helps with the costs; the amount is determined by Services Australia based on the client’s means assessment.

Daily payments are akin to rent payments and are not refunded when your client leaves care.

A combination of refundable lump sum and daily payments

This is when your client combines the two types of payments to meet their costs. The split of the combination can be made in the way that works best for the client’s financial situation.

The financial commitment of residential aged care extends beyond the initial room price. Once a resident moves in, they face ongoing daily fees for accommodation, care and hospitality services. Under the reforms that rolled out from 1 November 2025, the government restructured these fees to increase transparency. At the same time, a stronger user-pays model was introduced, one that scales based on an individual’s personal wealth.

The government’s website My Aged Care provides more information about aged care costs and how they are calculated.

Aged care advice

Access to quality aged care financial advice is incredibly important when it comes to making well-informed aged care decisions. Clients – and often, their families – need to understand the complexities of fees and costs and how to best structure finances to afford the required care.

However, there’s an ongoing problem with aged care advice, one beyond the inherent complexities in accessing and paying for care.

It’s an issue for the broader advice industry as well as extremely challenging for the clients and their families. The issue is this: a substantial amount of ‘aged care advice’ is provided by individuals who are unlicensed, not authorised, not on ASIC’s Financial Adviser Register. It’s provided by a range of people, professionals such as lawyers or accountants, individuals working in the aged care sector or with ancillary services. In some cases, aged care advice is provided by former (i.e. deregistered) financial advisers.

It can be difficult for families to source the right help and to understand the differences in the advice on offer. Are they receiving information only, general advice or comprehensive personal advice?

 Information versus advice

In many cases, the ‘client’ is the family of the person entering aged care and the move is often event driven. As the event is often negative – an illness, a fall, the death of a partner – emotions and stress levels can run high.

It is not unusual that the seekers of advice often don’t have the luxury of time or the emotional clarity to check the credentials of someone offering aged care advice, let alone ensure the guidance provided is in their loved one’s best interests.

Of course, there’s a lot of information that can be imparted without crossing the line into advice. This includes:

• explaining aged care fees (including calculations for an individual’s fee scenario)
• explaining Centrelink entitlements
• sourcing appropriate temporary or permanent accommodation.

If the professional in question is simply providing information without affecting any decision making, it’s not advice.

However, once the provider of aged care information influences an action, this likely crosses the line into personal advice. This might include:

• discussing options about how the client could pay for the aged care fees, or
• making recommendations about payment options.

However, even where a recommendation isn’t made, simply influencing the client to decide about a specific option, product or product class falls into the realm of personal product advice. The Corporations Act 2001 outlines two steps to determine whether a person is providing personal product advice:

1. The person providing the information or advice knows personal information about the client
2. There is a suggestion or inference to make a change in respect to assets or products, or a class of products, and influencing the client’s decision about those assets.

Finding and funding accommodation is usually only the first step in holistic personal financial advice; there is often financial, tax, social security and estate planning considerations. These should be the purview of a registered financial adviser providing aged care advice.

For many consumers, the difference between information and advice is not clear. Decisions can be made in haste when those making them are emotional or vulnerable. Given the expenses associated with aged care, decisions about the advice may be driven by cost without understanding the implications of following a recommended course of action.

Unregistered advisers may be cheaper because:

• they don’t have applicable professional indemnity insurance
• they aren’t members of AFCA, thereby denying their clients an opportunity for redress
• they aren’t required to have memberships of professional associations
• they avoid ongoing educational requirements.

Importantly, an unregistered adviser is not bound by the Financial Planners and Advisers Code of Ethics (Code of Ethics).

Ethics and aged care advice

A registered financial adviser offering aged care advice is obliged to adhere to the Financial Planners and Advisers Code of Ethics (figure two).

The Code of Ethics was introduced to provide a layer of consumer protection and engender trust in the financial advice profession. The Code of Ethics requires financial advisers to meet their obligations in the law in respect of the advice provided to each client, including:

• The best interests duty
• The appropriateness of advice
• Prioritisation of client’s interests
• Additional requirements for product replacement recommendations
• Australian Taxation laws.

Further, licensed financial advisers are required to:

• Know your client
• Work out their situation, objectives, needs and their financial literacy level
• Have a reasonable basis for advice
• Know your product and the consequences of your advice, and ensure the advice is appropriate for the client
• Comply with statement of advice (SOA) requirements.

Those individuals who provide aged care advice (not just information) and are not registered advisers operate outside of this Code and the requirements outlined above. This has negative implications for consumers.

At best, unlicensed aged care advice can have mediocre client outcomes. At its worst, it can lead to elder abuse, in particular financial elder abuse. This is defined by the World Health Organisation as “The illegal or improper exploitation or use of funds or other resources of the older person” and is the subject of an earlier article in this year’s Ethics Series, Ethical financial advice for vulnerable clients – part two.

Registered financial advisers who provide aged care advice are licensed and regulated under the Corporations Act. Among other protections, their clients can take complaints to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA).

Unregistered aged care advice is both a consumer protection and ethical issue for the industry. Although some clients receive personal product advice, they are not eligible for the protections available to clients of registered financial advisers, including access to AFCA.

Although not beholden to the Code of Ethics, unregistered advisers providing aged care advice fail to deliver important outcomes for clients that can be unpacked in reference to the Code and its standards, as follows:

The lack of mandatory registration for aged care advisers raises significant consumer protection concerns, as it leaves the sector without a formal mechanism to verify qualifications and expertise. This regulatory void exposes vulnerable families to advisers who may lack the necessary training to navigate complex aged care needs. Consequently, consumers face an increased risk of receiving inadequate financial planning and securing unsuitable care arrangements.

Furthermore, exempting these advisers from the Code of Ethics removes critical safeguards that mandate transparency, conflict management and acting in the client’s best interests. Without these binding ethical standards, accountability is severely diminished, creating an environment where advisers might prioritise personal or institutional gains over client welfare. This absence of oversight significantly heightens the risk of biased, misleading or self-serving financial advice.

Finally, the intricate and constantly changing nature of the aged care system demands highly specialised knowledge, particularly regarding its interplay with financial planning. Without robust regulatory and ethical frameworks, consumers are uniquely vulnerable to outdated or inaccurate advice that fails to address their specific needs. Ultimately, this lack of oversight undermines public confidence and can lead to severe, long-lasting financial and emotional repercussions for families.

Case studies

The following case studies highlight the benefits of obtaining aged care advice from registered financial advisers through the lens of the standards comprising the Code of Ethics.

Case study one: Moving into aged care

Barry and Maureen, a couple in their early 80s, needed to arrange residential aged care for Barry due to his deteriorating cognition. Following a formal dementia diagnosis, Maureen and their children realised he needed professional care. Seeking guidance, they turned to an aged care adviser recommended by their neighbour. They were unaware that the recommended adviser was not a registered financial adviser.

The adviser, Nigel, provided Maureen with a detailed costing of the aged care options for Barry and suggested they sell the couple’s residence to pay for the Refundable Accommodation Deposit. They could then use the remainder of the sale proceeds plus their savings to buy a small unit for Maureen. While advice about buying or selling property, including the family home, is exempt from AFS provisions, the advice pertaining to the use of the couple’s savings is not.

However, Maureen was unhappy with the advice. She didn’t want to move; the couple had already downsized from their farm and moved into town – where else could she go? She was close to two of her three children, comfortable in her community and president of the local CWA. The downsized home was selected for its garden, and she didn’t want to have to give that up.

Encouraged by their children, Maureen and Barry sought a second opinion, this time from a registered financial adviser from ACME Aged Care Advice. Their new adviser, Jackie, explained that as clients of a registered financial adviser, they had a range of protections – and she had training and education related to the aged care sector. Further, she regularly undertook professional development to ensure she was familiar with current legislation and other changes to the sector.

Jackie helped the family understand the intricacies of the aged care fees they would incur and explain how they had changed post 1 November 2025. While the family had some understanding, what they understood to be the likely fees had changed. Jackie developed a strategy to ensure the family home would be retained, so Maureen could continue to enjoy her home, garden and community. Importantly, it ensured she had somewhere to live once Barry moved into aged care.

Jackie was able to recommend several strategies to rearrange the couple’s investments. She presented two funding options to determine which worked best for them. With tailored advice and support, the couple was able to fund Barry’s aged care needs and implement a financial plan that both prioritised their long-term wellbeing and considered all elements of their financial situation, including Centrelink entitlements and estate planning.

As a registered financial adviser, Jackie is bound by the Code of Ethics. Her conduct in this case study saw her meet her requirements under the Code, specifically in relation to the following standards:

Case study two: Meeting aged care needs

Evelyn, a 79-year-old widow living alone, suffered a severe stroke that left her with permanent mobility challenges. Following an extended stay in an acute stroke unit, her multidisciplinary medical team advised her two sons that returning home independently was no longer safe, recommending a transition into permanent residential aged care instead.

Evelyn’s sons, who acted as her joint Powers of Attorney – one managing her medical decisions and the other overseeing her financial affairs – promptly scheduled a meeting with David, Evelyn’s long-standing financial adviser. Recognising that aged care involves highly complex, specialised regulatory frameworks, David immediately brought his colleague Sarah into the consultation. While both operated under the same financial services licensee, Sarah had completed advanced postgraduate certifications in aged care financial strategies to navigate the intricacies of means testing, payment options and the impact on Centrelink benefits.

Working collaboratively, Sarah and David modelled several funding scenarios for the brothers. A core constraint was Evelyn’s deep sentimental attachment to her family home; she refused to sell it, and her sons noted the property required significant deferred maintenance before it could fetch an acceptable market price anyway.

To solve this, Sarah proposed funding the transition via a Daily Accommodation Payment (DAP) instead of a lump-sum Refundable Accommodation Deposit (RAD). David then restructured Evelyn’s existing investment portfolio to generate a predictable, tax-effective monthly income stream dedicated entirely to covering the DAP and ongoing care fees. Ultimately, the coordinated approach ensured the brothers fully understood the financial commitments, fee structures and cash flow mechanics required to secure their mother’s quality of care without selling her home.

Working together, Sarah and David were able to provide Evelyn and her sons with positive outcomes, which ensured Evelyn’s care needs were met and her financial security assured. Their conduct in this case study saw the advisers meet Evelyn’s requirements under the Code of Ethics, specifically in relation to the following standards:

As Australia’s population ages, the demand for aged care advice will inevitably surge. Navigating this system often requires rapid decision-making during a highly stressful family crisis, making access to reliable, expert guidance more critical than ever.

However, the current regulatory ‘grey area’ allows unregistered, unregulated individuals to provide aged care advice while remaining exempt from the Code of Ethics. This lack of oversight poses severe risks to consumers, leaving them vulnerable to unqualified operators and biased recommendations that can jeopardise both their financial security and peace of mind. To safeguard vulnerable families, policymakers and industry stakeholders must close these loopholes and mandate that aged care advice be delivered exclusively by registered financial advisers.

Partnering with a specialist aged care financial adviser, either through a trusted external referral network or as an embedded specialist within the practice, can protect and enhance an advice firm’s client base as the wealth transition accelerates.

By integrating this specialised expertise, practices can seamlessly guide multi-generational families through highly stressful care transitions, preventing costly financial mistakes and securing the broader family’s loyalty. Ultimately, a proactive approach transforms a looming operational challenge into a powerful retention tool, positioning the practice as a holistic, indispensable partner for ageing clients and their beneficiaries.

Take the FAAA accredited quiz to earn 0.75 CPD hour:

CPD Quiz

The following CPD quiz is accredited by the FAAA at 0.75 hour.

Legislated CPD Area: Professionalism and Ethics (0.75 hrs)

ASIC Knowledge Requirements: Aged Care (0.75 hrs)

please log in to start this quiz

———-

Notes:
[1] National Ageing Research Institute demographic briefing
[2] https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-welfare/profile-of-australias-population
[3] The Risk of Unregulated Aged Care Advice: Protecting Older Australians and Ensuring Quality Advice, Aged Care Steps, January 2026
[4] Aged Care Act 2024 Wait Times Report: Residential care and Support at Home 1 November 2025 – 31 March 2026, published 12 May 2026
[5] https://www.agedcarequality.gov.au/providers/reform-changes-providers/about-new-aged-care-act-and-key-changes-providers

The post CPD: Aged care advice and ethics appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Stephen Sloane

There is a number that often comes up in conversations about advice firm revenue, and it sits around the $500,000 to $600,000 mark per adviser. It is not a hard rule, nor a reflection of the advisers’ skill or a limit on what a good advice business can achieve. But for many principal-led advice firms, it is a very real pressure point.

This level of revenue often represents years of demanding work and a loyal client base. It can also be the point where growth slows, not because the opportunity is not there, but because the structure around the adviser can no longer support it.

Adviser Ratings’ 2025 Australian Financial Advice Landscape reporting found solo adviser practices generate around $607,000 in revenue, while firms with five or more advisers generate around $5.1 million. The difference is not simply that larger firms have more advisers. It is that scaled firms usually operate with clearer role ownership, stronger support and better systems around advice delivery.

Many advice firms do not hit a growth ceiling because of the quality of their advice. They hit it because the adviser becomes the bottleneck.

In many advice businesses, the principal or lead adviser is still involved in too many parts of the process. Client meetings, strategy, compliance checks, file notes, document collection, CRM updates, follow-ups, implementation, provider liaison, team questions and business decisions all compete for the same person’s attention. It feels like a full business because it is a full diary. But full and scalable are not the same thing.

If an adviser is spending 15 to 20 hours a week on administration, coordination and internal follow-up, that can represent close to 1,000 hours a year. That is time not spent deepening client relationships, generating referrals, improving service quality or thinking strategically about the future.

Investment Trends’ 2025 Financial Advice Report, published by AdviserVoice, found 15.9 million Australian adults have unmet financial advice needs. In other words, the opportunity is there. The question is whether advice firms have the capacity to meet it.

This is where Levera’s work with advice firms becomes practical. The issue is rarely that advisers need to care more, work harder or buy another piece of software. In most cases, they need a better support structure around them. That means clear ownership, documented workflows and the right mix of people supporting the adviser before the pressure becomes unmanageable.

The firms that break through this pressure point usually share one common characteristic. They stop treating administration as an unavoidable cost of doing advice and start treating it as a design problem to be solved. They do not simply ask, “How do we get through more work?” They ask, “Who should own each part of the process, and what should the adviser no longer be touching?”

The firms generating stronger revenue per adviser are not necessarily working harder. In many cases, the adviser is doing fewer total tasks, not more. Other people, clearer systems or better workflows own the execution of the work the adviser does not need to handle personally.

The gap between a plateaued practice and a scalable one is rarely about ambition or effort. It is usually about design.

When revenue plateaus, the instinct is often to hire another adviser or bring in new technology. Both can help, but neither fixes the underlying problem if the operating model stays the same.

Technology is a good example. AI and automation may help with capacity, but they are not the starting point. You can layer automation over a broken workflow and all you achieve is faster inefficiency. The firms getting real value from technology are usually the ones that have standardised their processes, clarified role ownership, documented key workflows and built reliable support around the adviser. Structure first. Technology second.

So, what does a scalable operating model look like? In simple terms, it means the adviser is present only where the adviser must be present. That includes advice strategy, client relationships, complex decisions and the moments where the client needs to feel personally supported.

Meeting preparation, document collection, CRM updates, follow-ups, implementation coordination, provider liaison and recurring workflow tasks should not sit with the adviser by default. They should be owned by someone with clear accountability, a defined process and the systems to support them.

At Levera, this is the practical work we help advice firms build. Not just more hands on deck, but the right support structure so advisers can spend more time advising, leading and growing the business. That support may be onshore, offshore or hybrid. The location matters less than the structure. What matters is that the right work is handled by the right people, with the right accountability.

When that model is in place, the adviser can redirect capacity toward higher-value client work, stronger client communication, better referral relationships or a more deliberate move upmarket.

For principals sitting at or near this pressure point, the question worth asking is not, “How do I work harder?” It is, “What in this business genuinely needs me, and what am I still doing that someone else should own?”

The pressure point is real, but it is not fixed. It is a consequence of structure, and structure can be changed.

By Stephen Sloane, Managing Director, Levera Solutions

The post The $500k pressure point and why many advice firms get stuck there appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Kelly Power

New research from CFS reveals Australians approaching retirement are carrying a significant mental load, with many uncertain about their financial readiness and whether they’ll achieve a comfortable retirement.

Now in its third year, the CFS Rethinking Retirement report tracks how Australians feel as retirement approaches. The findings show that for many, retirement remains a financial challenge rather than a milestone to look forward to.

Just over half of Australians (51%) now say they feel prepared for retirement – an improvement on previous surveys, but the research shows there is still work to do for a majority of Australians to feel confident.

More than half (54%) worry they won’t have enough money to live comfortably, while 50% are concerned about unexpected health or aged care costs and 37% fear outliving their super savings.

The pressure is especially acute in the decade before retirement, with 61% of Australians aged 50–59 worrying about whether they have enough in savings to live comfortably.

The gap between when Australians hope to retire and when they expect to is equally telling. On average, Australians aspire to retire at 62, but believe they will need to keep working until 66. This four-year gap points to a mismatch between ambition and financial confidence.

There has also been a sharp shift in the amount Australians believe they need for a comfortable retirement. The research shows that the average amount Australians now believe is needed for a ‘comfortable’ retirement has moved above $1 million – an increase of $183,000 from the last survey.

Kelly Power, Chief Executive Officer of CFS Superannuation, said, “What this research makes clear is that retirement today is no longer just a financial transition. For many Australians, it brings a range of questions and considerations – from whether savings will be enough, to how to navigate an increasingly complex system. These are challenges many people are working through, and they need the right support to do so with clarity and confidence.

“Retirement is not a universal or linear experience. It is deeply personal, and so are the questions people bring to it. That is why we believe Australians should have access to the right guidance and support to help them approach this stage of life feeling informed, prepared, and in control,” added Ms Power.

Retirement pressure weighs more heavily on women

Women are significantly more likely to experience retirement-related stress, with nearly two in three (62%) worrying they won’t have enough money to live comfortably in retirement, compared with 48% of men.

Women are also more likely to be concerned about unexpected health and aged care costs (53% versus 46%) and about the prospect of outliving their superannuation savings (41% versus 34%).

The gender gap has persisted despite gradual improvement over three years of CFS surveys. The proportion of women who feel prepared for retirement has risen from 29% to 43%, while men’s preparedness increased from 44% to 59%. The distance between them, however, has remained largely unchanged – reflecting a structural confidence gap that persists across individual circumstances.

When it comes to the type of retirement Australians believe they will achieve, only 35% of women believe they will have a comfortable retirement, compared to nearly half of Australian men.

Financial advice plays a critical role in retirement outcomes

Financial advice is again a strong differentiator when it comes to retirement preparedness. More than three quarters of Australians who receive advice (77%) say they feel prepared for retirement, compared with less than half (45%) of those without an adviser.

Recent CFS member data reinforces this – those with a financial adviser are more likely to hold an investment risk profile suited to their life stage, rather than defaulting to more conservative approaches that can erode long-term retirement outcomes.

“The Rethinking Retirement report consistently shows that access to advice makes a tangible difference. Australians who receive it feel meaningfully more confident about retirement. Planning for retirement is complex, but the path forward becomes much clearer with the right support in place,” added Ms Power.

“That’s why improving access to financial advice is critical. We strongly believe that reducing barriers to advice, like cost, will help more Australians get the support they need to plan and retire with confidence.”

Read the report. 

The post Colonial First State research reveals the significant mental load Australians carry ahead of retirement appeared first on AdviserVoice.

For advisers, AI is rapidly moving from an experimentation phase to core advice infrastructure, and regulators are making it clear that governance expectations must keep pace.

Regulator scrutiny of AI governance just got serious

In years to come, they may well call it the ‘Mythos effect’ – the point in early 2026 where all the concerns about AI use in financial services came to a head and prompted the regulators to get serious.

ASIC has been watching this issue particularly closely since October 2024, when it published Report 798^[1], an examination of AI governance practices across financial services licensees. But when Anthropic (the company behind ‘Claude’) began inviting selected organisations to trial Mythos^[2] – a model built specifically for cybersecurity and autonomous coding – regulator anxiety shifted to a whole new level. Within weeks, ASIC had issued an urgent call^[3] for cyber uplift in the face of agentic AI, and APRA had written^[4] to all regulated entities demanding a ‘step change’ in AI risk management, warning that governance practices were falling dangerously behind the pace of advancements.

For advisers, the rapid adoption of AI gives this scrutiny extra relevance. A recent survey^[5] found that 74% of Australian advisers are already using or planning to use AI in their business – well ahead of the global average of 64% – with practices already putting AI to work drafting file notes, generating statements of advice and client communications, and accelerating research and compliance tasks.

For readers, this article takes a timely and practical look the nature of AI risks, the extent to which existing compliance frameworks and obligations acknowledge these risks, and what you can do now to close the governance gap and protect yourself and your clients.

AI is rapidly becoming advicetech infrastructure

The increasing adoption of AI by advisers has seen it rapidly progress from being an add-on tool to becoming a central element underpinning the technology stacks of advice practices.

The 2025 Adviser Landscape Report^[6] identified the key areas practices were already applying AI:

• 86% were using it for file notes and meeting documentation
• 53% were using it for client engagement applications such as newsletters
• 48% were using it for marketing, and
• 46% were using it with SOA or ROA production.

Given these rates are based on 2025 data, they are almost certainly higher now, as is the number of AI systems being used by advisers.

AI no longer just means ‘ChatGPT’, as advisers are presented with an ever-growing choice of generative AI tools developed specifically for advice, including Paradino, Saturn, and Marloo. At the same time, platforms and CRMs including Iress XPlan and Netwealth are rushing to offer various degrees of AI functionality, while the ubiquitous Microsoft 365 platform includes the rapidly improving Copilot.

The more innovative firms within the advice ecosystem are already pushing into more sophisticated territory. Melbourne-based Yarra Lane, working with outsourcing specialist Vital Business Partners, has been running AI-assisted workflow automation that literally goes to work overnight: bots review adviser calendars, access client systems, download portfolio reports and stage everything in SharePoint so advisers are ready to go before the first meeting of the day. As CEO Nick Perrett summed up, “our planners are working throughout the day, and our bots go to work at night.”^[7]

The next evolution will be ‘agentic AI’ – systems capable not just of automating fixed tasks, but of reasoning, making decisions and adapting when circumstances change, all without constant human direction. While still in its nascency within advice, the lightning pace of change, and the enthusiasm many advisers have for new technology, will likely drive a very sharp adoption curve.

But its power creates governance challenges

The power of AI to transform financial advice is already beyond doubt. Terry Dillon, Chief Executive of Shadforth Financial, expects his advisers to see 50 per cent-plus more clients thanks to AI, without dropping the amount of client contact or the quality of the advice.

“We’re not talking incremental change. We’re talking a step change in the number of clients advisers will be able to see over time,” Dillon says^[8].

As well as speed, AI can be consistent at scale, reducing the variability that can occur across different staff members or even across different decisions by the same team member.

Entireti’s Neil Younger argues this consistency “means you’re starting to introduce advice at lower cost points than we see in the traditional model.”^[9]

But this scalability and power is a double-edged sword. Any flaw in the AI, whether it be a hallucination, an algorithmic bias, or inadequate personalisation, can be propagated across hundreds of client files before anyone realises.

And the unseen nature of some AI tools – which run in the background of more comprehensive systems, rather than being standalone – can amplify the governance challenges.

ASIC’s central finding from REP 798^[10] is that these risks are real and growing, and businesses are struggling to ensure their governance practices can keep up with the explosive pace of change.

What ASIC found in Rep 798

ASIC’s Report 798 was based on a review of 624 AI use cases across 23 licensees, including banks, credit providers, insurers and financial advice businesses. What they found was that governance frameworks put in place by many of these businesses were failing to evolve at the same speed as the technology.

More alarming was the observed variability in standards – while some licensees had documented strategies and board-level reporting, others had no AI specific policies or governance framework at all.  Among the specific findings:

• Only 12 of the 23 licensees had policies addressing fairness or bias in their AI systems
• Only 10 had any documented approach to disclosing AI use to consumers
• None had implemented ‘contestability’ arrangements (mechanisms allowing clients to challenge decisions in which AI had played a role)
• 30% of all use cases relied on third-party AI models, and many licensees could not explain what those models were actually doing.

ASIC illustrated the practical implications of these governance shortcomings with a powerful, real life case study : a credit scoring model that had been running for months with no governance documentation, no risk rating and where the provider “could not explain the variables in the scorecard or the impact they are having on an applicant’s score.”^[11]

It is easy to imagine the same sort of ‘black box’ scenario in risk profiling software, which, if some unknown error or bias crept in, could allocate erroneous risk profiles to clients, undetected, for a significant period of time, potentially opening those clients up to significant financial harm.

Cyber risks take centre stage

While AI related cyber risks received little focus in Rep 798 (being mentioned only twice), the ‘Mythos effect’ has seen the topic become much more prominent in ASIC’s recent thinking, culminating in their May 2026 call for ‘cyber uplift’.

In an open letter^[12] from Commissioner Simone Constant, ASIC noted:

“The rapid evolution of frontier artificial intelligence models marks a significant shift in the cyber threat landscape. These models are accelerating both capability and accessibility, lowering the barrier to sophisticated cyber activity, increasing the speed and scale of attacks, and enabling new forms of exploitation that were previously out of reach for most actors.”

“This is not a distant or hypothetical risk. It is here now, evolving quickly and requires the attention of boards and executives.”

While ASIC weren’t targeting one specific industry sector with this message, the sensitive nature of client data stored and used by financial advisers makes advice firms an attractive target for ‘bad actors’, giving this statement added resonance for the advice profession.

In particular, it forces AFSLs to reckon with a problem not previously factored into most AI governance thinking – the extent to which AI dramatically expands the “attack surfaces” (exposure to untrusted networks).

When client data is fed into third-party AI tools, for example to generate file notes, draft SOAs, or summarise meeting transcripts, it is leaving the firm’s ‘controlled’ environment. The data handling practices of the AI vendor and the security of the API connection become a critical part of the firm’s cyber risk profile. The more vendors used, the bigger the attack surface.

APRA puts all regulated entities on notice

During a targeted review of large banks, insurers and superannuation trustees in late 2025, APRA identified a number of gaps which echoed those uncovered in Rep 798, including cyber security, governance maturity, and third-party concentration.

Following their review, APRA wrote to all regulated entities in April 2026 warning that while AI adoption is accelerating across the sector, associated governance and risk management practices are not keeping up^[13]. Boards were singled out as needing to develop the ability to challenge AI-related risks and ask hard questions of management.

AI governance – advisers’ existing obligations

ASIC frequently makes the point that the law, and its associated guidance, is ‘technology neutral’. This makes it easier for the regulatory framework to adapt to unforeseen technological advancements (video SOAs anyone?), and also means advisers have a base level of compliance obligations that apply regardless of the technologies used.

Key examples of obligations that are directly relevant to the use of AI in advice include (but are not limited to):

• Providing services “Efficiently, honestly and fairly” (under s912A)
  • You can’t blame an AI tool for incorrect outputs
• Not making “False and misleading representations” (under Australian Consumer Law)
  • AI hallucinations remain a significant risk
• Best Interests Duty
  • Professional reasoning cannot be delegated to a model
• Record keeping
  • The same evidentiary standards apply to AI generated file notes as to human generated documents.

A practical adviser framework for AI governance

In addition to the foundational compliance obligations that apply regardless of the technology used, the governance questions included by ASIC in Report 798 are a valuable starting point when building a practical, AI specific, governance framework for advisers.

An example of such a framework is below:

• Do an AI inventory check
  It is crucial to understand where AI exists in your practice. Start with a simple inventory: every AI tool in use, what it does, who is accountable for it, and what client data it touches. Include tools embedded in CRMs and wealth platforms, not just standalone AI applications.

• Have a documented AI policy
  At some stage, it is likely that having a documented AI policy will be mandatory, so get ahead of the curve. Your policy should cover:

• • which AI tools are approved for use and for what purposes?
  • what AI tools are not permitted (particularly for client-facing outputs without human review)?
  • what data may and may not be input into AI tools?
  • what review is required before AI-generated content is relied upon or sent to clients?
  • what client information is being fed into AI tools?
  • who stores those prompts, and what are the privacy implications?

• Assign accountability
  Someone in the practice needs to own AI governance. In a small practice this may be the principal adviser. In a larger licensee it may require a formal role or committee. ASIC’s May 2026 cyber statement is explicit that this responsibility sits at board and leadership level.

• Conduct meaningful human oversight
  Having genuine human oversight of AI output – often referred to as ‘Human in the loop’ – means the adviser can stand behind every recommendation in the document, explain the reasoning, and confirm it reflects the specific client’s circumstances. Anything short of this means such oversight doesn’t really exist.
• Train your staff on the tools they use
  The black box phenomenon, where no one really understands how AI is generating the answers it does, is clearly dangerous. Staff need to understand what each AI tool does, what it can get wrong, and where their judgement needs to take over.
• Make your vendors accountable too
  Most AI powered software is provided by a third party, and you need to be comfortable about their own governance standards. Find out from the vendor what model they provide to you, how it is trained and updated, how errors are identified and corrected, and what happens to client data entered into the system. 

• Address cyber risk specifically
  ASIC’s May 2026 letter placed active management of third-party cyber risk squarely on the licensee. Review which AI tools are receiving client data and under what terms. Assess vendor security practices and data handling as part of your outsourcing governance.
• Tell your clients where you have used AI
  There is currently no mandatory requirement to disclose AI use to clients in the advice context. But Rep 798 flags this as an area of emerging expectation, and voluntary disclosure is now better practice. Consumers have a growing expectation that AI is used by businesses and indeed may even use AI to critique your recommendations. Providing a brief, plain-language explanation of where AI is used in the advice process can protect you and the client down the track.
• Build in regular reviews
  AI vendors can update models, add capabilities and change data handling practices at breathtaking speed. The governance framework you put in place today will likely date faster than almost any other document in your business, meaning regular reviews are critical.

In summary

For advisers, AI is rapidly moving from an experimentation phase to core advice infrastructure, and regulators are making it clear that governance expectations must keep pace. Recent interventions from APRA and ASIC – for which new ‘frontier’ and agentic AI systems were the catalyst – signal that improving AI oversight is something for entities of all sizes to prioritise now.

For advisers, the challenge is not whether AI should be used, but how it can be used in a way that remains defensible and consistent with existing professional obligations. Practices that treat AI governance as an extension of their broader compliance and client protection frameworks will be better positioned to capture the transformative benefits of the technology, while avoiding the governance failures regulators are increasingly worried about.

Take the FAAA accredited quiz to earn 0.25 CPD hour:

CPD Quiz

The following CPD quiz is accredited by the FAAA at 0.25 hour.

Legislated CPD Area: Regulatory Compliance & Consumer Protection (0.25 hrs)

ASIC Knowledge Requirements: Regulatory Environment (0.25 hrs)

please log in to start this quiz

———–

References:
[1] https://download.asic.gov.au/media/mtllqjo0/rep-798-published-29-october-2024.pdf
[2] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-04-23/powerful-ai-tools-posing-cybersecurity-risks-australia-lagging/106584436
[3] https://www.asic.gov.au/about-asic/news-centre/find-a-media-release/2026-releases/26-092mr-asic-calls-for-urgent-cyber-uplift-as-ai-accelerates-cyber-threats/
[4] https://www.apra.gov.au/news-and-publications/apra-calls-for-a-step-change-ai-related-risk-management-and-governance
[5] https://www.adviserratings.com.au/news/the-ai-revolution-in-financial-advice-australian-practices-leading-global-adoption/
[6] Ibid
[7] https://www.professionalplanner.com.au/2025/05/meet-the-advisers-pioneering-the-professions-ai-adoption/
[8] https://www.afr.com/companies/financial-services/the-biggest-constraint-to-using-ai-for-financial-advisers-20260407-p5zltj
[9] Ibid
[10] https://download.asic.gov.au/media/mtllqjo0/rep-798-published-29-october-2024.pdf
[11] Ibid
[12] https://download.asic.gov.au/media/xhrf1w0e/26-092mr-open-letter-to-afs-licensees-and-market-participants.pdf
[13] https://www.apra.gov.au/apra-letter-to-industry-on-artificial-intelligence-ai

The post CPD: AI governance – a practical framework for advisers appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Investment-linked lifetime annuities challenge the idea that retirees must choose between enjoying their retirement and leaving a legacy.

Australia’s great wealth transfer is well underway. An estimated $5.4 trillion is expected to pass from those aged 60 and over to younger generations within the next two decades.^[1]

In 2024, around $150 billion was transferred and this is forecast to rise to $500 billion per annum by 2044,^[2] with more than 80% of inheritances going to individuals aged 50 and over.^[3]

With such a significant intergenerational shift in wealth, the role of financial advice has never been more critical. It’s no longer just about how to accumulate, it’s about ensuring the right assets go to the right people, at the right time, without unnecessary tax, legal disputes or financial mismanagement.

Importantly, wealth transfer is not a single event. It is the outcome of a well-structured financial strategy. The real question is not “How do you prepare for a wealth transfer?”, but rather “How do you build a financial plan that delivers the right outcomes?”

Modern families, modern challenges

Family structures are becoming increasingly complex, and estate planning must evolve accordingly.

Divorce rates are rising, with nearly 200,000 Australians filing for divorce between 2020 and 2022 – the highest level in over a decade.^[4]

These dynamics are reshaping how advisers need to think about wealth transfers.

In fact, the complexities of blended families have been linked to an 80% increase in family disputes over wills and estates over the past decade.^[5] Adding to this, a 2022 ruling by the Victorian Supreme Court reinforced that parents may have a “moral duty” to consider children from previous relationships, even if those children can later contest the estate.^[6]

Supporting loved ones with additional needs

The challenge becomes even more pronounced when clients have children or other loved ones with additional needs.

The traditional cycle of ageing where adult children support their parents, does not apply in these scenarios. Instead, your clients may be responsible for ongoing care of others well into their own retirements, while also wanting to plan for what happens when they are no longer here.

Guiding clients through this process is complex and deeply emotional. You are not only structuring financial outcomes – you are helping clients secure the long-term wellbeing and dignity of someone they care about.

Looking ahead, the scale of this issue is growing. By 2099, an estimated four million Australians will have a severe or profound disability. This is more than triple the number in 2009.^[7]

While improvements in care and accessibility are positive, they also introduce additional planning complexities. At the same time, many traditional financial solutions designed for non-dependant adult children particularly those with nevertheless, special needs or financial vulnerabilities, are becoming less effective.

In Australia^[8]:

• Nearly one in five people live with a disability
• One in three of those individuals has a severe or profound limitation

For many parents, one of the greatest concerns is simple – will my loved one be financially secure when I’m gone?

Why traditional structures may fall short

As family dynamics and client needs evolve, so too must the tools used to support them. Challenges financial advisers are facing include:

• Traditional estate planning approaches increasingly being tested; both legally and emotionally
• Increased complexity when planning for modern day family dynamics, complex family structures and blended family scenarios
• Providing some certainty to clients needing to support children or loved ones with additional needs

Wills and trusts remain important, but they can fall short in delivering certainty. They are frequently contested, misinterpreted, or reliant on third-party actions.

For clients, particularly those with vulnerable beneficiaries and complex family structures, the overall depleted certainty can leave them harbouring ongoing anxieties.

Expanding the estate planning toolkit

This is where alternative structures come into focus.

Investment bonds, for example, are increasingly being used as estate planning tools due to their flexibility and tax advantages.

They can be appropriately structured as non-estate assets that bypass probate, likely to reduce the risk of disputes. They also provide greater control over how and when wealth is transferred, without the administrative complexity of a trust.

But there is another, less commonly considered approach emerging in advice strategies.

A different lens: Providing a loved one a paycheque for life

Investment-linked lifetime annuities are typically used to provide retirees with a regular income stream for life, complementing superannuation and the Age Pension.

However, advisers are increasingly exploring their use in a different context – to provide a structured, ongoing income stream to a loved one after the client is gone.

Rather than transferring a lump sum, which may be easier to mismanage, contest or deplete, this different approach reframes the wealth transfer as an income outcome.

It shifts the focus from – “How much is left?” to “How is it delivered, and how long will it last?”

This has led to a growing uptake of lifetime annuities as tools for a controlled, predictable “paycheque for life” – a lasting legacy for life.

Planning for their financial future, in a different way

Investment-linked lifetime annuities offer a level of innovation that’s not often found in traditional financial solutions; they are flexible and can be creatively applied in ways that cater to any family situation.

When setting up a lifetime annuity, the investor can choose their payment frequency and have a choice to invest in professionally managed options that they can switch between over the life of the annuity. Importantly, they can also elect a reversionary beneficiary that will be paid a lifelong income.

For some, they won’t require this level of tailored planning; straightforward solutions can work well. However, for those looking to ensure a steady stream of income for a loved one – for example, a child with a disability, or a loved one with a complex mental health history – this could be the ideal fit. Ultimately, the annuity provides for the recipient and leaves the investor free to enjoy their final chapters knowing that their loved one will be looked after when they’re gone.

Bringing this to life

Financial advisers can listen and understand their clients’ priorities, then set up lifetime annuities that can deliver to their unique needs. For instance, an adviser can set up a recipient with a lump sum or a lifelong income stream. For an income stream, they can specify to whom it goes, whether all or a portion of the income continues and how it is invested now, with the flexibility to change this over the course of their client’s lifetime as well as changing it to match the reversionary beneficiary’s risk profile upon transfer.

Case Study 1: Meet Wendy

Wendy is 72 years old and currently has $50,000 in savings, a $500,000 account-based pension and $30,000 in car and contents.

Despite these assets, Wendy is hesitant about her spending as she worries about her daughter, Jennifer.

Jennifer is 52 years old and has a history of a complex mental health disorder. This impacts her ability to spend her income within her means. Based on Jennifer’s history, Wendy is worried that there is a high likelihood Jennifer could bankrupt herself unless she has a regular, long-term stream of income after Wendy passes away.

By working with a financial adviser, Wendy sets up an investment-linked lifetime annuity for herself using $200,000 that she withdraws from her account-based pension. Wendy nominates Jennifer as the reversionary beneficiary on the annuity, which will provide an income guaranteed for Jennifer’s life after Wendy passes away.  Wendy doesn’t need to worry about anyone else trying to access Jennifer’s future income source. This is because an investment-linked lifetime annuity offers the protections of a life insurance policy, including from bankruptcy and estate claims.

This way, Wendy has greater confidence to enjoy her retirement to the fullest. She knows that she will have income for herself, but also a regular income stream for Jennifer that will serve as a safety net after Wendy passes away.

Case study 2: Meet Sophia

Sophia is 73 years old and single. She has a son, Paul, who is 50 years old. Sophia is a self-funded retiree and a homeowner, and she currently has $360,000 in an account-based pension, $40,000 personal assets and $350,000 cash at bank.

Sophia is concerned about her retirement spending and would like to gain access to the Age Pension.  She also worries about her son Paul, who is bad with money.

Sophia would like to secure Paul’s future, including by diminishing the potential for Paul to misuse a future lump sum inheritance.

By working with her financial adviser, Sophia sets up an investment-linked lifetime annuity of $300,000 and a funeral bond of $15,750 from the money she had in the bank. She nominates Paul as the reversionary beneficiary providing regular income for them both at different times.

Comparing Sophia’s first year income

By setting up an investment-linked lifetime annuity, Sophia receives an immediate uplift in annual income of $16,023, including an Age Pension uplift of $7,812.

Comparing Sophia’s annual income and cumulative income with and without an investment-linked lifetime annuity until age 100

By bringing forward Age Pension eligibility by four years, she receives an additional $45,369 in cumulative Age Pension by age 77. Sophia also receives an additional $630,084 in cumulative income by Age 100.

What if Sophia passes away at age 93…

Sophia receives a total of $443,807 in cumulative income until she passes away at age 93. Paul, now age 70 himself, will receive a total of $464,430 until his life expectancy and continue to receive an income for life after that. Importantly, there is no tax on earnings and concessional taxation treatment on the income payments should their income exceed SAPTO.

Case study 3: Meet George

George is 88, a homeowner in Port Macquarie, living alone following the passing of his wife, three years ago. His two adult children live in Sydney and visit infrequently, typically once a year at Christmas.

As George has aged, maintaining his home and managing day-to-day tasks has become increasingly difficult, and he has begun to feel isolated. His neighbour and a father of three, Sam, has stepped in, regularly helping with groceries, home maintenance, and providing much-needed companionship.

George is clear in his intention: he would like to recognise Sam’s support by providing him with a lifelong “paycheque for life,” while ensuring this arrangement cannot be challenged by his children. At the same time, George intends to leave his home, remaining superannuation balance, and other non-super assets to his two children, allowing him to support Sam without compromising his broader estate planning objectives.

By working with a financial adviser, George restructures part of his retirement savings; withdrawing a portion of him account-based pension and setting up an investment-linked lifetime annuity. He nominates Sam as the reversionary beneficiary.

This structure allows George to create an income stream guaranteed to be paid to Sam for life after George passes away, rather than leaving a lump sum that could be contested. Importantly, as an investment-linked lifetime annuity is issued under a life insurance structure, it can be established as a non-estate asset – helping to reduce the risk of estate disputes and providing additional protection, including in the event of bankruptcy.

For George, this approach delivers certainty and control, ensuring his wishes are carried out, and that Sam receives a legacy for life.

Thinking outside the box

Investment-linked lifetime annuities challenge the idea that retirees must choose between enjoying their retirement and leaving a legacy.

For financial advisers, this presents an opportunity to rethink beneficiary planning. As client needs evolve, whether its supporting dependent children, protecting vulnerable loved ones or planning for legacies to last a lifetime, strategies must evolve to deliver more flexible, intentional and client-aligned outcomes.

Take the FAAA accredited quiz to earn 0.5 CPD hour:

CPD Quiz

The following CPD quiz is accredited by the FAAA at 0.5 hour.

Legislated CPD Area: Technical Competence (0.5 hrs)

ASIC Knowledge Requirements: Estate Planning (0.5 hrs)

please log in to start this quiz

———-

Notes:
[1] JBWere Australia, Family Advisory and Philanthropic Services, The Bequest Report – Reshaping Australia by passing on more than assets July 2024, accessed 20 March 2025
[2] Ibid
[3] Grattan Institute, The story of inheritances in Australia – and why it needs to change https://grattan.edu.au/news/the-story-of-inheritances-in-australia-and-why-it-needs-to-change/, 20 August 2019 accessed 1 August 2025
[4] Sydney Morning Herald, ‘Divorce applications up as marriages hit the rocks’, https://www.smh.com.au/national/divorce-20220628-p5axco.html 3 July 2022 accessed on 15 April 2025.
[5] Australian Financial Review, ‘Big increase in inheritance feuds among blended families’, https://www.afr.com/wealth/personal-finance/big-increase-in-inheritance-feuds-among-blended-families-20191212-p53jbs 27 December 2019 accessed on 15 April 2025.
[6] Australian Financial Review, ‘Court enforces rights of stepchildren in blended families’ https://www.afr.com/wealth/personal-finance/court-enforces-rights-of-stepchildren-in-blended-families-20220311-p5a3u5, 16 March 2022, accessed on 15 April 2025.
[7] ‘Disability expectations – Investing in a better life, a stronger Australia’ – Price Waterhouse Coopers, November 2011, accessed 17 June 2024 https://www.pwc.com.au/industry/government/assets/disability-in-australia.pdf
[8] Disability statistics, accessed 17 June 2024  https://www.aruma.com.au/about-us/about-disability/disability-statistics/

Generation Life Limited AFSL 225408 ABN 68 092 843 902 (Generation Life) is the product issuer, provides general financial product advice and other services related to investment life insurance products and life risk insurance products. Any superannuation general financial product advice provided is by Generation Development Services Pty Limited ABN 14 093 660 523 (GDS) as Corporate Authorised Representative, No. 001317211 of Evidentia Financial Services Pty Ltd AFSL 546217 ABN 97 664 546 525 (Evidentia). The information provided is general in nature and does not consider the investment objectives, financial situation or needs of any person and is not intended to constitute personal financial advice. The product’s Product Disclosure Statement and Target Market Determination are available at www.genlife.com.au and should be considered in deciding whether to acquire, hold or dispose of the product. Superannuation products’ PDSs, offer documents and TMDs are available via the websites of their product issuers. Professional financial advice is recommended. Generation Life, GDS and Evidentia exclude, to the maximum extent permitted by law, any liability (including negligence) that might arise from this information or any reliance on it. Generation Life, GDS and Evidentia do not make any guarantee or representation as to any particular level of investment returns or income, pay back periods or age pension entitlements. Generation Life does not accept any responsibility or liability for superannuation general financial product advice provided by GDS. Past performance is not an indication of future performance. Government entitlements and benefits referred above may not apply to all individuals and may vary depending on an individual’s (or couple’s) personal circumstances which may change over time. All decisions regarding social security assessment for individuals will be made by Centrelink or the Department of Veterans’ Affairs officers based on social security law and the circumstances of the individual at the time of claim. All scenarios have been prepared in good faith based on Generation Life’s understanding of laws, taxes, fees, social security and aged care assessment, rates and thresholds and product features known as at 1 January 2026 unless specified otherwise. All Age Pension entitlement calculations include pension and energy supplements.

The post CPD: Thinking outside the box – providing a loved one a paycheque for life appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Toby Ellis

Generation X – those born between 1965 and 1980 – is doing much of the heavy lifting in Australian society – raising families, caring for ageing parents and keeping the economy moving.

However, more than half say they feel invisible in national debate, and only 3 per cent say they are thriving.

New national research from Citro, released yesterday, reveals a generation caught in the middle: emotionally stretched, quietly coping and largely missing from public conversation, despite being in their peak working and caring years.

The survey of more than 1000 Gen X Australians found:

• 51% feel mostly or completely invisible in Australian media, politics and public discussion
• 90% describe themselves as exhausted, uncertain, stretched or coping
• Just 3% say they are thriving
• 66% say caring responsibilities leave them emotionally or mentally stretched

Citro managing director Toby Ellis said the findings pointed to a major blind spot in how Australia thinks about wellbeing and ageing.

“Generation X is holding a lot together in Australia right now – families, workplaces and communities – but they’re doing it quietly and often at personal cost,” Ellis said.

“This research shows a generation that is resilient and capable, but tired, under‑recognised and coping rather than thriving. The risk is that we only notice the strain when something breaks.”

Unlike younger generations, who dominate conversations about housing and cost‑of‑living pressures, or older Australians, who are the focus of retirement policy, Gen X often falls between the cracks, the research shows.

Many respondents reported juggling care for children, adult children and ageing parents at the same time, while navigating midlife health changes, work pressure and growing uncertainty about the future.

“We have built strong systems in Australia to talk about money and retirement,” Ellis said.

“But this research highlights the other side of the equation – social connection, identity and emotional wellbeing – and how fragile those supports can become in midlife if they’re ignored.”

AMP’s Chief Economist Dr. Shane Oliver said Generation X has been absorbing the economic shock of recent years while continuing to carry much of the load across households, workplaces and communities.

“One of the most important factors shaping Gen X outcomes is that real wages remain materially lower than they were five years ago, despite recent nominal wage growth. The surge in inflation following the pandemic significantly eroded purchasing power, and it will take many years for that lost ground to be fully recovered.

“For Generation X, this matters more than for most cohorts. These are peak expense years – when mortgages are largest, children are still financially dependent, and caring responsibilities extend simultaneously to ageing parents and family members. The result has been sustained financial compression, not temporary adjustment.

According to Ellis, Citro’s findings suggest how Australians feel in midlife will shape how confidently they enter later life – not just financially, but socially and emotionally.

The report calls for greater recognition of midlife as a distinct life stage, stronger support for carers, and more focus on community connection and belonging – alongside financial preparation – to support long‑term wellbeing.

“The foundations for later life aren’t built at retirement,” Ellis said.

“They’re built much earlier, through feeling seen, connected, valued and supported. If Gen X enters the next chapter already depleted, the consequences won’t just be personal – they’ll be societal.”

About the report
Citro commissioned a comprehensive study in March of over 1,000 Gen X Australians (born 1965–1980) across all states and territories. The survey was conducted by independent research group Dynata and captured the lived experience of a generation navigating mid-life under mounting financial, caring, workplace, and health pressures — largely without a public voice.

The post Australia’s forgotten generation: Half of Gen X say they feel “invisible” and most are barely coping appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Aware Super scooped four wins in total, including the award for Best Fund: Member Services, and Best Fund: Insurance.

The Chant West Super Fund Awards celebrate excellence across 14 categories, showcasing industry best practice to help lift standards across the industry, celebrating the achievements of funds for their work in the important areas of investments, member services, advice and insurance. The awards also play an important role in encouraging ongoing improvement across the sector, with the ultimate goal of delivering better outcomes for members.

The other category winners were:

• Corporate Solutions Fund of the Year – Australian Retirement Trust
• Advised Product of the Year – AMP MyNorth
• Best Fund: Investments – Hostplus
• Best Fund: Advice Services – Brighter Super
• Best Fund: Lifetime Product – AMP MyNorth Lifetime, for the third year in a row
• Best Fund: Innovation – HUB24
• Best Fund: Responsible Investments – UniSuper
• Best Fund: MySuper Performance Outcomes – Hostplus
• Best Fund: Digital Advice – AMP Super
• Specialist Fund of the Year – Team Super

Chant West general manager Ian Fryer says after many years of having a bespoke theme for each year’s awards – which put the spotlight on a key priority or challenge within the industry – Chant West decided not to have a specific theme this year.

“We believe this decision allows each of the 14 categories to have their respective moment in the spotlight, and rightly focus on the individual criteria that underpins each award, without elevating one above another,” Fryer says.

“Highlighting excellence in all 14 categories is important if Australia’s super system is to continue to thrive.”

Fryer says Australia’s retirement saving system is regarded as one of the best in the world.

“The Chant West awards highlight the innovation and excellence at play in the sector, which will help ensure it continues to remain focused on delivering better retirement outcomes for all members.”

The post Aware Super takes out top gongs at Chant West Awards appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Max Allan

This week, the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) and Digital Finance Cooperative Research Centre announced the release of the final report for Project Acacia.

The project explored how tokenised assets, digital money and modern settlement infrastructure could fundamentally reshape Australia’s wholesale financial markets.

Project Acacia has achieved world firsts, including the issuance of pilot wholesale central bank digital currency (wCBDC) onto public and private distributed ledger infrastructure.

20 innovative use cases from a diverse range of organisations, ranging from fintechs to major banks, completed experimentation between August 2025 and February 2026, comprising:

• 12 pilot use cases, which involved real money and real asset transactions, and
• 8 proof-of-concept use cases involving simulated transactions.

The use cases involve varied asset classes, including fixed income, managed funds, repos, structured products, private markets, carbon credits and trade payables. Settlement was conducted using a range of methods and forms of public and private digital money, such as stablecoins, tokenised forms of commercial bank deposits, pilot wholesale central bank digital currency (CBDC), and traditional RBA exchange settlement account (ESA) balances.

The experiment operated in parallel with an examination of the key legal and regulatory considerations associated with the issuance of bank deposit tokens in Australia.

Project Acacia highlights the strong and growing interest across industry in the use of tokenisation within Australia’s wholesale financial markets. By streamlining processes and enabling more efficient settlement, tokenisation has the potential to deliver meaningful improvements in market efficiency, resilience and overall functionality.

Mallesons partner Max Allan sat on the Industry Advisory Group for Project Acacia, which provided advice on the project pathway, findings and future research opportunities.

Commenting on the project, Max Allan said: “This project has been a vital initiative to emphasise the opportunities created by new technology solutions to enhance the functionality, resilience, efficiency and stability of financial markets and systems, in Australia and beyond.

“As financial markets, payments and digital assets rapidly evolve, it will be important to maximise the benefits presented by these opportunities and adeptly navigate the challenges. This will require sustained constructive engagement across government, regulators, industry associations and market participants.

“I would like to congratulate the Reserve Bank of Australia, Digital Finance Cooperative Research Centre, ASIC, APRA, the Australian Treasury and all participants, including my colleagues on the Industry Advisory Group, for the success of the project. I am delighted, and grateful, to have had the opportunity to contribute to the project.”

The post Project Acacia releases findings on tokenisation of money and assets appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Buying another business to grow your own can be a great move without doubt.  But, one should really question the motivation, the rationale and understand thoroughly and logically what the benefits from acquisition are.

Many firms facing increased overheads and infrastructure costs in the next few years are considering acquisition or merger strategies as a survival or growth strategy.

Generally there appears to be  5 main reasons that advisers suggest as their reasons for acquisition of another business. They are:

1. Get new clients
2. Increase business turnover
3. Increased cost efficiency
4. Diversify business lines
5. Enhance market position

ALL of these reasons offered CAN be perfectly valid and logical moves for a smart business owner….

BUT….there are many occasions where some simple questions can head off a purchasing (and/or financing!) disaster too as growing through acquisition or merger may well compound problems, rather than lead to a better business.

Some of the issues or questions to consider prior to deciding that this is the right strategy for growth would be:

Get new clients

The one question that I ask immediately when encountering this idea for acquisition is “what’s wrong with the business – or the clients – that you have?”

It may be that there’s nothing actually wrong with your existing client base, though it is usually suggested that there are just not enough of them.  Usually that suggests a problem with the business model of the firm: too focussed upon transactions and insufficiently focussed upon delivering valuable service and ongoing advice.

Even if the business is fundamentally delivering value to existing clients though, generally the desire to simply add more of them rapidly through acquisition suggests that there are some likely problem areas already within the practice, such as:

1. Poor or inadequate marketing (which may be a wide range of things such as branding, positioning, value proposition, etc)
2. Poor engagement (you’re generating leads and business opportunities, but not engaging or converting enough of them)
3. Inadequate sales skills (people in your business are blowing the good work done by your marketing perhaps)
4. Poor business systems (inadequate information and data management; poor advice processes; etc)
5. Providing the wrong thing (amazing but true!  often advisers with a business problem are simply not giving their natural – or target – market what it is they actually want and are willing to pay for)

Often there is a belief amongst advisers that simply having more people to see, or “fresh” clients to wheel out the same story or service offering to, will somehow transform their business.  What is that old line about “doing the same thing but expecting different results….“?

Increase business turnover

No doubt, adding more paying clients will increase turnover, or gross revenue.

But does that actually help?

Two simple questions are a logical starting point:

1. How much extra turnover, or gross revenue, will the new clients bring in?
2. How much of that gets to your bottom line?

The financial focus for acquisition should be on profitability for the business, rather than merely turnover. While this may sound like ” business 101″ it is an often forgotten point. This rationale of simply pursuing increased turnover quite often suggests an existing business that has little internal financial knowledge or systems…in other words, a business where just adding bulk may well compound any existing problems.

Improve cost efficiency

This is potentially an excellent reason for acquisition, particularly in businesses that have relatively high proportions of fixed overheads and relatively low service delivery costs per client.

Once again there are two simple questions to begin with if this is the motivation for acquisition:

1. How does it improve your cost efficiency?
2. So, how much do the anticipated cost savings add to the bottom line?

The first is a really big question that reveals very rapidly the level of understanding that the existing business owner has of their own business fundamentals.  Asking them to think through the areas where costs may be saved, and then identify the details of those theoretical cost savings, is illuminating.   It is also an area which is usually seriously over-estimated.  Rarely do the synergies and efficiencies from acquisition or merger flow through quite as well in practice as they did in theory.

Most financial advisers (despite their personal financial literacy) have poor data and therefore poor internal intelligence on their own client profitability – how the different types of costs are allocated across different types of clients within the firm; what the marginal cost of each additional client will be in servicing or efficiency within their business; how the fixed costs will be affected by additional capacity requirements and so forth.  If that is the case, then it becomes very difficult to assess the efficiencies that can be gained from acquisition with any real accuracy.

Diversify business lines

The argument here is that the new business introduces additional opportunities to the practice through the acquisition of intellectual property, people or systems.

When this is provided as a reason for acquisition one of two things is occurring:  either it is a clear sign that there is a complete lack of strategic clarity and planning ability; or; at the opposite extreme, there is very good strategic thinking at work.  Business owners looking to acquire for this reason are either thinking “I need more stuff to sell”, or, they have a clear idea of where their business wants to be positioned in the future and have decided logically that it is cheaper to purchase the next piece that moves them closer to the goal, rather than to spend the time and money in development themselves.

It is just a matter of working out which of those two conditions are prevailing….and once again a fairly simple question gets to the heart of it:

“how do the new business lines lead you more quickly to achieving your vision?”

If it is the later reason for acquisition, then generally it can work out very well indeed.  If the former, there is a tendency once again for an acquisition to be less successful than anticipated.

Enhance market position

Bigger is not always better, and if the rationale for increasing in size is merely to cater to an egotistical drive or need it is probably a waste of time.  However, bigger can certainly be more valuable.

One of the best examples I have heard of was a financial adviser whose business had grown fairly large organically over many years, and after some sound strategic thinking they decided that “get big quickly” was the right way forward.  The reason?  To sell the business at a premium price and retire.  A series of rapid fire small acquisitions, a re-branding exercise across all new purchases, implementation of some standardized systems…and 6 months after all of that sell the lot at a vastly higher price then they could otherwise have done.

As an exit strategy it can be risky – but very worthwhile.  Whether it is worthwhile really does come down to that clarity of vision once again though.

Buying another business to grow your own can be a great move without doubt.  But, one should really question the motivation, the rationale and understand thoroughly and logically what the benefits from acquisition are.

If you do so, then there is a very good chance that the pieces will fit together well for you.

The post Is acquisition, or merger worth It? appeared first on AdviserVoice.