ASIC Report 833: What increased trustee scrutiny means for advisers
ASIC has released Report 833 – Safeguarding super: How well are platform trustees monitoring risks to retirement savings? following a review of six major platform superannuation trustees.
While REP 833 is primarily directed at superannuation trustees, it has important practical implications for financial advisers. ASIC is making it clear that trustees are expected to undertake substantially more active monitoring of advisers, advice licensees, advice fees, superannuation switching and investment flows.
As trustees respond to ASIC's findings, advisers should expect an increase in requests for advice documents and explanations about particular client transactions, fee arrangements and recommendations.
ASIC's central message is that trustees cannot simply process adviser instructions and fee deductions without appropriate oversight. They are expected to use the information and data available to them to identify potential risks to members and investigate unusual activity.
Why has ASIC undertaken this review?
The platform superannuation sector has grown significantly. ASIC reports that platform superannuation member benefits increased from approximately $123 billion in June 2015 to $396 billion in June 2025. Over the same period, advice fees deducted from platform superannuation accounts increased more than four-fold, from approximately $0.5 billion to $2.3 billion.
Recent cases involving the Shield Master Fund and First Guardian Master Fund have also heightened ASIC's concerns about inappropriate superannuation switching, excessive advice fees and members being directed into high-risk or inappropriate investments.
ASIC's review considered six platform trustees and found that, despite previous regulatory guidance, trustees were still not doing enough to protect members from potentially harmful advice fee deductions and inappropriate investments.
What did ASIC find?
ASIC identified several areas where trustee practices need to improve.
1. Insufficient checking of advice documents
ASIC considers that trustees should proactively check samples of advice documents on both a risk-based and random basis.
All six trustees reviewed conducted some advice checks, but three had at least one month during ASIC's review period where they conducted no checks at all. ASIC also reported more than 240 adverse findings from the documents that were checked, representing nearly 10% of all checks, with adverse finding rates varying significantly between trustees.
Importantly, ASIC says a trustee's review should go beyond simply confirming that the member signed a fee consent.
Trustees should be able to confirm that:
a financial service was actually provided;
the advice fee relates to personal advice concerning the member's superannuation interest;
the fee is consistent with the sole purpose test;
there is no indication of fees being charged for no service; and
the advice does not display obvious indicators of inappropriate "cookie-cutter" advice.
ASIC also makes an important distinction: it does not expect trustees to determine whether an individual piece of advice was appropriate, good value or in the client's best interests. That remains principally an advice/licensee obligation. The trustee's role is to satisfy itself that deductions from superannuation are permitted and that its broader monitoring controls protect members.
2. Greater scrutiny of advice fees
ASIC was critical of some of the advice fee limits currently permitted by platform trustees.
Percentage-based caps ranged from 1.66% to 10%, while the highest existing dollar cap identified was $25,000. ASIC was particularly concerned that some percentage caps did not have an overriding dollar limit, potentially allowing very large deductions from higher-balance accounts.
ASIC wants trustees to develop their own view of what represents a reasonable cost of advice for their members rather than simply benchmarking their limits against other platforms.
Trustees are also expected to monitor patterns and irregularities in fees, including fee structures that appear to have been designed to circumvent platform controls.
For advisers, this means that a fee being below a platform's published maximum should not necessarily be regarded as the end of the matter. An unusually high fee, a fee representing a significant percentage of the client's superannuation balance, or an unusual pattern of deductions may trigger further review.
3. Additional protection for lower-balance members
ASIC was particularly concerned about the effect of advice fees on members with relatively low superannuation balances.
Only one trustee reviewed imposed a minimum $20,000 balance before allowing an advice fee deduction, while another applied additional protections to balances below $100,000.
ASIC noted, however, that there can be entirely legitimate reasons for a member to have a relatively small accumulation account. For example, a member may have moved most of their benefits into retirement phase while retaining a smaller accumulation account for future contributions, insurance or tax-management purposes.
ASIC identified as better practice looking at the member's aggregated balance across account types, rather than considering an individual accumulation or pension account in isolation.
This is particularly relevant for retirement clients who may hold both an accumulation account and one or more pension accounts.
4. Greater scrutiny when advisers and licensees join platforms
ASIC also wants trustees to conduct substantially more due diligence on the advisers and AFSLs that use their platforms.
ASIC says onboarding should go beyond a checklist or an attestation from the licensee. Trustees should seek to understand the underlying business model, including how new clients are obtained and whether the practice uses lead generators or third-party referral arrangements.
Trustees may therefore ask advisers or IIP questions about matters such as:
how clients are sourced;
referral relationships;
use of lead-generation businesses;
typical advice and fee models;
expected new-business volumes;
the types of clients being advised; and
examples of advice provided.
The trustee may then compare actual activity on the platform against the information supplied during onboarding.
5. Ongoing monitoring of advisers and licensees
ASIC expects trustees to monitor advisers and AFSLs after they have been approved to use the platform.
This includes considering indicators such as:
complaints against individual advisers or licensees;
rapid growth in client numbers;
repeated instances of high advice fees;
members withdrawing fee consent;
unusually high levels of clients not renewing ongoing fee consent; and
information contained on ASIC's Financial Advisers Register and other regulatory datasets.
ASIC also expects trustees to maintain watchlists of advisers and licensees of concern, with clear escalation and remediation processes.
Where a trustee identifies serious concerns, the consequences can extend beyond merely requesting additional documentation. REP 833 includes examples where trustees suspended advice fees, refunded fees and ultimately terminated an adviser or licensee's platform access.
6. Monitoring superannuation switching and investment flows
Trustee scrutiny will not be limited to advice fees.
ASIC wants trustees to analyse patterns in:
new members joining a platform;
rollover and switching activity;
concentrations of business associated with particular advisers or licensees;
investment flows;
investment holding limits; and
concentrations of adviser clients in particular investments.
ASIC considers unusually rapid growth or a concentration of members moving into a platform through one adviser to be potential risk indicators. It also wants trustees to investigate unusual concentrations of adviser clients in the same investment options, as these could indicate highly standardised or "cookie-cutter" advice.
ASIC specifically urges trustees to investigate unusual patterns in member flows and to report concerning switching patterns to ASIC.
What information might a trustee request from you?
One of the most important practical consequences of REP 833 is that advisers should expect more trustee requests relating to individual client accounts.
These requests should not automatically be interpreted as an allegation that the advice is inappropriate. Risk-based and random sampling of adviser files is precisely what ASIC is now encouraging trustees to undertake.
Depending on the reason for the review, a trustee may ask for information such as:
The advice document
The relevant SOA or ROA demonstrating the advice provided to the member and how the client's superannuation interest forms part of the advice.
Advice fee documentation
The client's Ongoing Fee Arrangement, Fee Deduction Consent or other applicable fee authority demonstrating the amount of the fee, the services to which it relates and the account from which the client has authorised the deduction.
Explanation of the services being provided
The trustee may seek confirmation that the fee represents personal advice provided to that member and has the required nexus to their superannuation interest.
Explanation of the amount of the fee
Particularly where the fee is high in dollar terms or represents a material proportion of the member's superannuation balance.
Explanation of which account is funding the advice fee
Where a client has multiple accounts, trustees may ask why fees have been directed to a particular account.
For example, where a member holds both accumulation and retirement-phase pension accounts, the adviser may have deliberately directed an eligible advice fee to the accumulation account because of the potentially more favourable tax treatment of eligible advice expenses in the accumulation environment. The adviser should be able to clearly explain the rationale for the arrangement and demonstrate that the fee nevertheless relates to personal advice concerning that member's superannuation interests.
Information about a rollover or superannuation switch
The trustee may seek the advice document or an explanation of the rationale for recommending that the member establish the platform account, particularly where its data identifies unusual switching activity.
Information about investment recommendations
A trustee may investigate unusual investment flows, concentrations or potential breaches of investment holding limits and ask for supporting information concerning the relevant recommendation.
Additional information about the client circumstances
For example, a seemingly high advice fee against a $30,000 accumulation account may look unusual when viewed in isolation. However, the member may also hold a $700,000 pension account. REP 833 expressly acknowledges the relevance of considering aggregated balances across account types when assessing low-balance protections.
This is not an exhaustive ASIC-prescribed list of documents that trustees must request. Rather, these are the types of enquiries advisers should reasonably expect as trustees implement the risk-based and random advice-document checks, fee monitoring and transaction monitoring ASIC is calling for.
What does this mean for IIP advisers?
For the overwhelming majority of advisers providing appropriate personal advice, REP 833 does not fundamentally change how advice should be provided. What it does change is the level of independent scrutiny occurring at the trustee level.
When a trustee contacts you seeking further information about a client's account, please respond promptly and provide sufficient information to allow the trustee to understand the transaction.
Before providing documents containing extensive personal information, advisers should also follow the appropriate privacy and document-handling processes. ASIC specifically notes that trustees and advisers should have arrangements in place to address privacy issues associated with trustee advice-document checks.
If you receive a trustee enquiry and are unsure about the information being requested or how to respond, please contact IIP Support before responding. We can assist you in identifying the relevant documentation and preparing an appropriate response.
Key takeaway
REP 833 should be viewed as a clear signal that superannuation trustees will become more active participants in monitoring financial advice activity occurring through their platforms.
Advisers should expect more questions about advice fees, fee deductions, account balances, superannuation switching, investment selection and unusual patterns of activity.
A request from a trustee does not necessarily indicate that something has gone wrong. In many cases it will simply reflect the risk-based and random monitoring program ASIC now expects trustees to operate.
The best response is to ensure that the client file clearly demonstrates:
what advice was provided;
why the recommendation was made;
how the advice relates to the client's superannuation interest;
what services the client is paying for;
why the fee is reasonable and appropriately allocated; and
that the appropriate client consent and authority are held.
REP 833 makes it clear that trustees are expected to ask more questions. Our role is to ensure that when they do, the advice file allows those questions to be answered clearly and efficiently.
Access Report 833
You can learn more about ASIC Report 833 on the button below