Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,687
I think I spot another nuanced change from Strawman. The 0.5% overall charge has been retained but the guarantor of last resort of this cap is the CPA. Submissions from providers all said they couldn’t operate at the 0.5% cap. But they are now only required to provide investment services. 0.5% is a hefty amount for investment services.
It is stated that the CPA might outsource admin services but state categorically that is they, the CPA, who are the ultimate deliverer within the 0.5% cap. What I envisage happening is that they get takers for investment management at say 0.25% and takers at 0.5% for fund admin and the CPA/taxpayer subsidise the fund, at least initially, to get within the cap.
That is fair enough, in the jargon a progressive fiscal stance for the reality is that low income contributors are not as commercially viable as high income contributors.
It is stated that the CPA might outsource admin services but state categorically that is they, the CPA, who are the ultimate deliverer within the 0.5% cap. What I envisage happening is that they get takers for investment management at say 0.25% and takers at 0.5% for fund admin and the CPA/taxpayer subsidise the fund, at least initially, to get within the cap.
That is fair enough, in the jargon a progressive fiscal stance for the reality is that low income contributors are not as commercially viable as high income contributors.