What do you reckon about the $100 once-off fee for having your trust deed updated to take into account legislation changes? Seems as if this occurs every two or three years to "keep up" with the government's ever-moving goal posts and meddling in super - especially in self managed funds. I think ESuper are great in general, but believe this latest fee is a bit of a cash grab ... Every member pays $100 fee - however there's pretty much only one "template" trust deed which needs to be updated ... Go figure. They could have - for example - charged a token fee of even $20 and still made a massive profit on these changes. I just think it's pretty misleading to pretend that the $100 fee is there to recoup costs involved in having the changes drafted when in fact the costs are not even in the same order of magnitude as the fees which will be charged for this.
They waived the fee for me as I have only been up and running for less than a year. It probably took $1000s to read the Gov requirements and work out what changes had to be made, lawyers don't come cheap. I guess they then just split the cost over the membership, added admin costs and a bit extra to chase up the deliquents like me who haven't returned it yet..
I reckon they have tens of thousand of members... => millions generated by $100 fee. No attorney is THAT expensive!! :lol:
I'm not a fan of eSuper, but the $100 looks like standard industry price for online document changes to SMSFs.
I know it was pretty standard practice to charge 250 - 400 for review and update of a trust deed as a result of Bamford case. A little different in that it was an indivdual review of each deed and update of the deed (in most cases) but $100 isn't too bad. I was most annoyed by the fact that they didn't actually ask me if I wanted to update my deed but went ahead and did it with no authorisation. I was going to complain on that basis and not pay the fee (I don't believe any of the changes outlined were necessary for my fund). In the end I decided the hour that would take in drafting letters and correspondence etc would cost me more than the $100.
Yippee - I am pretty much of the same opinion. Without knowing how many accounts they have it is hard to make a judgement but it does seem pretty steep for what was a one size fits all document. I also did not appreciate the fact the account was debited at the same time they informed me of the charge. They gave me no time to think about it and maybe dispute/question it.
Can we not accept the new trust deed? I have not signed it yet and do we have to have the deeds updated? What implications are there in actually staying on the old deed terms? Slam
It is 70+ pages so I am slowly making sure they didn't slip in a clause that says I have to give them all my posessions. They did give a list of the changes, none of them applied to me but it did not occur to me to question it, I just assumed that it was a gov requirement and there was no choice.
I think the only real legislation change would be the tax concessions over a certain amount (mostly applies to the rich). Either way none of the members will be hitting those targets with our fund. Staying on the old deed is more beneficial and less restrictive. I don't really want to change anything on the deeds if I don't really have to. I'll shoot esuper an email at some point over the next few days to enquire about this. They have already deducted the funds from the account. How legal is it for them to actually force us to sign and take on this new deed? Slam
I don't believe it's binding, so if you want your old deed back they'll have to refund you! I'm beginning to think along the same lines...
Slam - can you keep us updated on what answers you get back? I've not had time to even look at the document yet but I think I need to have a read through sooner rather than later.
I fired off the email. Waiting for the reply, In short. I don't like the new clauses that are slipped in. If its legislative changes, then only change the bear minimum and provide us with a fair cost of adding a few clauses. What would be the worse case if you don't accept the new deed? - They ditch you as a customer and you need to find a new accountant and auditor? - The fund is not compliant? - Just add the only required legislative clauses to make it compliant?
E Super drew alot of small balance players into the SMSF. Many of these palyers put the small balance in PM's Quite a few on here cautioned them at the time. Start easy end hard has been my experince in business over the years.
Yes I agree. So many people just look for the cheap option and then get bitten. If you get into bed with a dog you shouldn't complain about the fleas Kind Regards non recourse
When the thread appeared about these changes I read it, even though I'm not an ESuper user. Having only recently set up my own SMSF and done a lot of reading to do so, most of the changes to the deed are to reflect changes in legislation. So they are changes you need to follow anyway if you want to remain SIS Act compliant. However whether they need to be codified into the Deed should be up to trustees. In my opinion only. On the other hand, the inclusion into Deeds that trustees may acquire property through limited recourse lending makes sense. Otherwise you, as both trustee and beneficiary, are limited and disadvantaged.
Ok guys, no reply from Esuper. Despite me firing off the email and my brother calling them up a number of times. We do not intend to take up the new deed, it so happens they are probably trying to ignore the situation. Can you guys also fire off some emails and try to get a resolution to this? they have already deducted the funds and we want it back. Is it even legal to deduct funds that you have not authorised? Can I goto ANZ bank and file an issue of unauthorised debit? The previous deeds already have clauses in which if new legislation is passed, the existing deed will comply with new legislation. So constantly updating to the new deed isn't necessary everytime that the government decides to dick around with super. We do not intend to take out any loans for our SF (recourse or no recourse, does not matter to us). Slam
You may well find yourself receiving a letter from eSuper stating that they cannot manage your SMSF anymore as you have failed to follow their terms and conditions. I have not checked them (the T+C in relation to your objection) and you may not have done anything wrong by them, it's just a friendly warning. Do not rely on anything they say either on the phone or via email as advice that you can rely on. They will terminate their services regardless of any advice they have given you previously and will not enter into any further correspondence. So, you have a choice: do as they say and fall into line, or don't and risk getting kicked out. Good luck.
