@Ross The evidence is pretty clear on that. When advisers work in the best interests of their customers, as opposed to putting their customers into the products that pay them the most, outcomes are improved. (Makes sense doesn't it? Financial advisers go from sales people for fund companies to client fiduciaries.) It might reduce access, but does someone with $50K in a KiwiSaver really need investment 'advice'? A risk profile questionnaire or similar is a much better way to help consumers get into the right fund, i.e. move from a Balanced Fund to a Growth Fund. Why have more developed investment markets, e.g. US, UK, Canada, Aus, Netherlands etc. have banned adviser commissions from fund providers? I'd also add that there is a large group of KiwiSaver customers that are paying someone an advice fee without getting anything beyond a cursory email once a year in exchange. As @Paul says, it's 'easy money' for advisers...

Aside from other questions I have on the inheritance/trustee case, what was the trustee company 'guilty' of to make them liable for the loss? Was it negligence, breach of contract (presumably not), was the trust in breach of its fiduciary duty? Where is the evidence? What is the justification? My understanding is Trusts and Trustees must act prudently and soberly in protecting a beneficiary's interests and does not extend to taking undue investment risk. How can 'advice' or investment decision be condemned simply on the outcome and with the benefit of hindsight? The benefit of hindsight can never be the determining factor in liability for inherently uncertain and unforeseeable outcomes, such as investment returns. If the trustee company had put her money in a growth fund and that had suffered losses over the period compared to a balanced or conservative fund, I have no doubt the trustee company would have been found to have taken too much risk and would again be making good the 'losses'. This cannot be fair, reasonable or just, it condemns advisers to being 'damned if they do and damned if they don't'.

@Paul Flood: Noted, thanks. Call that fellow a pusher, then. :) Re: Inheritance/trustee case - She suffered no financial loss, and the trustees made an effort to contact her. Don't see the logic why the trustee should compensate her? Question - had there been a world stock market crash in 2024, wonder what FSCL's decision will be or the beneficiary be complaining? Point being, we can't predict what's going to happen in 8 years' time. Me thinks, greed. With this FSCL's decision - does this mean investors can now sue their financial advisers for not picking the fund that could have given them a better return?