Financial firm: MWL Financial Services Pty Ltd (In Liquidation)
Date: 31 July 2026
Nature: Bulk determination addressing three separate complaints
Products / structure: Macquarie Super Manager II and Shield Master Fund
1. Executive Summary
AFCA determined three complaints against MWL Financial Services Pty Ltd concerning advice to move all or most of the complainants’ superannuation from established funds to Macquarie Super Manager II and invest most of the transferred balance in the Shield Master Fund.
AFCA found that the advice was inappropriate and not in the complainants’ best interests. The central problem wasn’t simply that Shield later performed poorly. AFCA found that MWL’s recommendation relied heavily on projected or asserted superior performance, despite Shield having only commenced operating in July 2021 and therefore lacking the historical performance record necessary to support those projections.
AFCA also found that the strategy involved materially greater risk than the complainants’ previous APRA-regulated superannuation arrangements. Shield was relatively new, had limited funds under management, had material exposure to unlisted property and, according to its own Product Disclosure Statements, was not intended to operate as a complete investment program. In the individual complaints, the proportions invested in Shield were substantial, including 98.8% of transferred funds in one matter.
The determination identifies ss 961B and 961G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) as the relevant best interests and appropriateness provisions. AFCA concluded that MWL lacked a reasonable basis for recommending the rollover and Shield investment strategy.
AFCA awarded direct financial-loss compensation of:
- $39,270.44 in complaint 12-25-302612;
- $100,173.19 in complaint 12-25-285964; and
- $110,224.10 in complaint 12-25-303580,
each with CPI-based interest. The three awards total $249,667.73, although each complaint is legally and procedurally separate.
The main compliance significance is that advisers cannot justify switching a client from an established superannuation fund primarily by reference to projected outperformance where the recommended product lacks a reliable track record and presents materially different underlying risks.
2. Citation and Context
AFCA Bulk Determination, Case 12-25-303580, MWL Financial Services Pty Ltd (In Liquidation), 31 July 2026.
The determination addresses three separate complaints. Each complainant alleged that MWL advised them to transfer all or most of their superannuation to the Macquarie wrap platform and invest in Shield.
The financial firm was in liquidation and did not provide a substantive response.
AFCA’s key conclusions were that:
- MWL recommended a high-risk strategy;
- complainants were given unreliable information about Shield’s financial performance;
- performance information was a key basis for the recommendation; and
- the advice caused compensable financial loss.
For each complaint, the determination becomes binding if the relevant complainant accepts it within 30 days.
3. Procedural Posture
AFCA determined the complaints based on the documents, recollections and circumstances available to it.
It expressly notes that AFCA isn’t a court and doesn’t take or test evidence on oath. It gives greater weight to contemporaneous documents and, where relevant documentary evidence is unavailable, determines what most likely occurred from the available material.
AFCA also exchanged the loss calculations with the parties. MWL didn’t respond, while each complainant ultimately accepted the relevant calculation.
This evidentiary approach matters in a remediation context because contemporaneous SOAs, PDS disclosures, performance assumptions and transaction records can materially determine both liability and compensation.
4. Facts, Issues and Outcome
Lead generation and switching strategy
With limited complaint-specific variation, the complainants were introduced to MWL after contact from a lead generator. The lead generator suggested that the complainant’s superannuation performance could be improved by switching funds.
MWL then provided personal advice recommending transfer to Macquarie Super Manager II and investment in Shield.
The SOAs identified various benefits of the strategy, including access to Shield, diversification, active management and anticipated superior returns.
AFCA concluded, however, that the primary reason for the Macquarie rollover was to facilitate the investment in Shield.
Performance assumptions
AFCA found the recommendation relied primarily on unreliable performance information.
Shield only began operating in July 2021, so it had no five-year historical performance record when the relevant advice was given. AFCA distinguished between investment targets stated in Shield’s PDSs and actual historical returns.
It observed:
“These were mere targets.” See p 4, s 2.1.
AFCA found it inappropriate to recommend a switch primarily on projected performance without adequately analysing the underlying product features and risks.
Risk characteristics
AFCA identified several features increasing risk:
- Shield had limited operating history;
- it had relatively low funds under management;
- its PDSs said it was not intended to form a complete investment program;
- it had significant exposure to unlisted property; and
- that exposure included the Chiodo Diversified Property Fund, which invested in property development projects.
The PDSs themselves described Growth and High Growth as high-risk strategies. The July 2023 High Growth PDS went further, stating that the fund was more likely suitable as a “minor” or “satellite” investment than as a standalone portfolio solution. See pp 4–5.
5. Contraventions and Advice Failures
| Act | Section | Duty / prohibition | Conduct | Count | Finding | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) | s 961B | Best interests duty | Recommended switching from established superannuation funds to a materially riskier strategy without adequate basis | Not quantified | Advice not in best interests | pp 3, 8–11 |
| Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) | s 961G | Appropriate advice | Recommended strategy without reasonable basis that it was likely to place clients in a better position | Not quantified | Advice inappropriate | pp 3–6 |
AFCA explains that s 961B requires advisers to act in the client’s best interests and refers to the safe-harbour steps in s 961B(2), including reasonable enquiries, product investigation and judgments based on the client’s relevant circumstances.
The determination doesn’t quantify separate breach counts. None should be inferred.
6. Key Legal and Compliance Principles
6.1 Projected performance is not a sufficient advice foundation
AFCA’s strongest criticism was the reliance on projected outperformance without sufficient support from historical evidence or underlying investment analysis.
The determination states:
“There was no reasonable basis for the advice to change superannuation fund”. See p 3, s 2.1.
Where a recommended product is new or has limited history, projected returns should not substitute for analysis of asset composition, liquidity, valuation, risk, manager capability and downside exposure.
6.2 Product access does not itself justify a platform rollover
Macquarie offered access to Shield, but AFCA found that this was effectively the principal purpose of the rollover.
The theoretical availability of other investment options through a platform added little where MWL recommended investment overwhelmingly in one product.
For licensees, platform advice should therefore be supported by client-specific benefits independent of access to the preferred investment.
6.3 Risk profiling must be reconciled with actual product risk
The determination compared MWL’s risk-profile assumptions with Shield’s own return targets and PDS disclosures.
AFCA observed that higher targeted returns ordinarily imply higher risk. Because Shield targeted returns above the benchmarks MWL itself associated with comparable risk profiles, the advice required closer examination of the additional risk being taken.
A standard asset-allocation table is not enough if it does not explain the underlying assets’ risk characteristics.
6.4 Concentration should trigger escalation
One complainant invested $296,400 of $300,000 transferred, or 98.8%, in Shield. Another invested $92,150 of $100,000 transferred. A third invested most of a $298,000 transfer in Shield.
Where a substantial majority of a client’s retirement savings is placed in a product whose own disclosure documents say it is not intended as a complete investment program, the advice should trigger heightened review.
7. Causation and Loss
AFCA expressly separated breach from compensation.
It stated that a complainant must establish breach, loss and causation, and that the breach must be a decisive consideration even if it is not the only or most significant cause.
AFCA accepted that the complainants relied on MWL’s advice and would not otherwise have adopted the Shield strategy.
The appropriate counterfactual was therefore based on the position the complainants would likely have occupied had they remained in, or moved as otherwise intended to, established superannuation funds.
AFCA explains its remedial approach as placing complainants in the position they would have been in had appropriate advice been given.
A significant point is that Macquarie had already returned capital invested in Shield, reducing the losses that would otherwise have arisen. AFCA’s calculations account for those refunds and subsequent withdrawals or rollovers.
8. Compensation and Remedies
| Complaint | Counterfactual | Direct loss | Interest |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12-25-302612 | UniSuper Balanced | $39,270.44 | CPI from 7 October 2025 |
| 12-25-285964 | CBUS Growth (MySuper) | $100,173.19 | CPI from 31 December 2025 |
| 12-25-303580 | CBUS Super Growth Plus | $110,224.10 | CPI from 20 November 2025 |
The compensation calculations also included effective reimbursement of adviser fees.
AFCA declined to award compensation for non-financial loss. It acknowledged stress and inconvenience but didn’t consider the complainants’ circumstances exceeded the ordinary degree associated with a financial dispute.
9. Complaint-Specific Findings
Complaint 12-25-302612
The complainant transferred $100,000 from UniSuper to Macquarie and invested $92,150 in Shield Master Fund Growth.
AFCA compared the actual outcome with continued investment in UniSuper Balanced, using a calculation period from 12 July 2022 to 7 October 2025.
Compensation: $39,270.44 plus CPI interest.
Complaint 12-25-285964
The complainant transferred $300,000 to Macquarie and invested $296,400, or 98.8%, in Shield Master Fund Growth.
The counterfactual was CBUS Growth (MySuper), reflecting the complainant’s originally intended destination for the AMP Super balance.
Compensation: $100,173.19 plus CPI interest.
Complaint 12-25-303580
The complainant transferred $298,000 from Media Super to Macquarie and invested most of the transferred funds in Shield.
AFCA used CBUS Super Growth Plus as the counterfactual because Media Super had merged with CBUS and that option was treated as the equivalent of the complainant’s former investment option.
Compensation: $110,224.10 plus CPI interest.
The loss calculation also accounted for Macquarie refunds, subsequent rollovers and later Vanguard investments.
10. Relevance for Licensees, Advisers and Responsible Managers
The determination identifies several practical control themes.
Performance representations: historical and projected performance must be clearly distinguished. Never present target returns as established performance.
Product research: advice files should demonstrate investigation of underlying assets, liquidity, concentration, valuation methodology and material risk disclosures.
Switching advice: recommending an exit from an established superannuation fund requires more than identifying a product with higher projected returns.
PDS reconciliation: where a PDS states that a product is not intended to constitute a complete portfolio, recommending that almost all transferred superannuation be invested in it should trigger compliance escalation.
Lead-generator controls: licensees should test whether lead-generation communications pre-frame the advice outcome before proper fact-finding and investigation.
11. Risk Management and Compliance Recommendations
| Audience | Control Type | Legal rationale | Risk indicator | Practical control |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Advisers | Preventative | ss 961B, 961G | Switch justified mainly by expected returns | Mandatory qualitative and quantitative switch analysis |
| Research | Preventative | Reasonable investigation | Product with <5-year history | Enhanced new-product due diligence |
| Compliance | Detective | Appropriate advice | >50% of transferred super in one non-mainstream product | Concentration exception review |
| Licensee management | Governance | Best interests | Repeated use of same platform/product combination | Adviser and product concentration dashboard |
| Distribution | Preventative | Advice integrity | Lead generator promises improved returns | Call monitoring and approved scripts |
| File review | Detective | Product suitability | PDS warnings inconsistent with SOA recommendation | Mandatory PDS-to-SOA reconciliation |
| Complaints | Corrective | Causation | Failed switch strategy | Counterfactual modelling using previous fund |
12. Recommended Next Steps
Advice licensees should consider a thematic review of historical switching advice involving products with limited operating histories, particularly where projected outperformance was a material recommendation factor.
Priority should be given to files where:
- most of a client’s retirement savings moved into one product;
- the recommended fund had substantial exposure to unlisted assets;
- the PDS described the product as unsuitable as a complete portfolio;
- lead-generation material promoted superior performance before advice was provided; or
- the SOA did not adequately analyse the client’s existing superannuation fund.
Responsible managers should also assess whether current product-governance controls detect inconsistencies between PDS risk disclosures and actual portfolio recommendations.