For journalists
Built ahead of The Hon Dr Daniel Mulino MP’s address to the National Press Club on Wednesday 19 August 2026, 11:30am – 1:30pm: “Protecting Consumers and the Promise of Superannuation in an Evolving Financial System” (National Press Club of Australia, npc.org.au events listing, 2026-08). Every figure below carries its own source and the date it was published. Nothing here is estimated for effect.
Five published determinations against five different firms, and AFCA found the same things in each. These are not five separate stories that happen to look alike. In each determination AFCA found the same failures: advice that was not in the client's best interests, a whole superannuation balance moved into a single high-risk scheme, and a conflict between the adviser's own interest and the client's. The findings are set out below in AFCA's own words, with each case number and date beside them.
One interest to declare. The loss figures this service calculates use AFCA's published "but for" approach, which is currently the subject of industry submissions asking the Government to change it.
That approach is not only mine. It is the method AFCA applies to every determination in this collapse. If it changes, the figures this service produces change, and so does the compensation awarded to thousands of people who have lodged or will lodge. I have set out the public record either way and every source is named.
Context for that interest, measured from the trade press covering Wednesday's address. The SIAA's stated position: AFCA's approach results in the CSLR “not just paying for investors' actual financial losses but covering their unrealised estimated profits”. The FAAA lists CSLR sustainability first among four priorities it wants addressed. Financial Newswire reports that ending the "but for" approach sits at the top of the industry's list heading into the address. Financial Newswire, SIAA / industry submissions on AFCA's 'but for' approach, 2026-05-21 · Money Management, FAAA priorities ahead of Mulino NPC address, 2026-08-13
AFCA does publish complaint data on a schedule. Its Datacube is updated on the first business day of every month, current to the end of the previous month, and it has been monthly since October 2025. It is public, it is searchable by firm, and it shows complaint counts, resolution times and outcomes. What it does not do is count by collapse. It is organised by firm, and it includes only firms carrying four or more complaints in twelve months, so an InterPrac complaint and a Dixon Advisory complaint sit in the same table with nothing in it to say which collapse either belongs to. That is why it cannot answer the question this page asks. AFCA also publishes a complaint allocation page for these collapses, giving per-firm case-number thresholds and the dates it expects to reach them, and that page is about allocation progress. The number of complaints lodged over Shield and First Guardian is a different figure again, and it is the one with no schedule. The most recent came from a conference stage on 11 June 2026, and AFCA's determinations count came from a video update on 10 February 2026. Both are AFCA choosing to state a number rather than publishing it on a cadence. The number that sizes the levy is the one without the schedule.
AFCA, AFCA Datacube (read 17 August 2026), read 2026-08-17 · AFCA, About the AFCA Datacube (read 17 August 2026), read 2026-08-17 · AFCA, AFCA Datacube now updated monthly, 2025-10 · AFCA, Complaint allocation information (read 17 August 2026), read 2026-08-17
3,429 complaints lodged with AFCA. Around 11,000 people affected.
As at 11 June 2026. Those two figures count different things. One person can lodge more than one complaint, because the adviser, the platform and the fund are separate companies that each owed them. So the number of people who have lodged is lower than 3,429, and the number still to lodge is higher than the difference between these two numbers.
This is not a live feed. AFCA publishes complaint data by firm every month in its Datacube, but it does not publish a count by collapse, so this figure appears only when AFCA states it. The most recent one is 75 days old. AFCA, AFCA Datacube (read 17 August 2026), read 2026-08-17
Macquarie returned about $321 million of Shield capital, and Netwealth has committed over $100 million to First Guardian investors. That was investors' own capital coming back. The growth that superannuation would have earned since is a separate claim, and it is still open.
People responded to online “superannuation health check” advertisements, or were contacted directly. Lead generators referred them, for a fee, to a financial adviser, who recommended rolling their super into a Shield- or First Guardian-linked platform.
The Corporations Act's anti-hawking provisions generally restrict cold-calling to sell a financial product. Lead generation for superannuation is not covered by that ban in practice: a person who responds to an advertisement is treated as having initiated contact. ASIC has opened a review of advice licensees that use lead generation services to examine that gap. National Seniors Australia, Funds collapse exposes loopholes, 2026-02-20
Shield paid almost $65 million to lead generators. Professional Planner, Shield sent almost $65 million to lead generators, 2026-06-26
ASIC has said that some advice licensees received multi-million-dollar payments from entities connected to Shield and First Guardian, for marketing the funds to clients. Money Management, ASIC's Kirkland updates on Shield/First Guardian enforcement action, 2026-03-26
Two organisations have published full positions ahead of the address, and they are set out below as they were published. A third, the SIAA, is quoted at the top of this page: see What this is, and the declared interest. None of the three is endorsed here.
Two FY2027 levy figures are in circulation and they are not the same figure. The CSLR’s estimate for the scheme as a whole is $198.1 million, up $60.7 million from $137.5 million. Inside that total, the estimate for the personal financial advice sub-sector is $190.3 million, up from $126.9 million. Reporting that quotes one of them should say which.
The annual levy that can be raised from the advice sub-sector is capped at $20 million. The FY2027 estimate for that sub-sector is $190.3 million, which is $170.3 million above the cap. An amount above a sub-sector's annual cap can only be raised if the Minister determines a special levy. That determination is the Minister's to make.
Dixon Advisory accounts for around 46 per cent of the FY2027 advice sub-sector estimate, and remains the largest single component of it. Shield and First Guardian are the largest contributor to the increase.
Compensation Scheme of Last Resort, CSLR FY2027 revised levy estimate, 2026-07, reported by Professional Planner, FY27 CSLR advice levy reporting, 2026-07.
Ban lead generation for superannuation and financial advice, and close the loophole that lets cold-calling offer financial advice without breaching the anti-hawking rules.
Decisions about super can have life-long impacts. It is far too important to leave to cookie-cutter advice over the phone. The cost of poor consumer protections is currently falling on everyone, through direct losses, compensation scheme funding and increased Age Pension costs.
Xavier O’Halloran, CEO, Super Consumers Australia · Super Consumers Australia, Government urged to shut down predatory super switching schemes, 2026-02-20
The median price of financial advice has shot up by 65 per cent over the past five years, and is currently around $4,700.
Sarah Abood, CEO, Financial Advice Association Australia
Its four stated priorities:
Money Management, FAAA priorities ahead of Mulino NPC address, 2026-08-13
ASIC has 12 matters before the courts against 21 defendants. That figure includes all four superannuation trustees named in the table above. Money Management, ASIC's Kirkland updates on Shield/First Guardian enforcement action, 2026-03-26
Proceedings are allegations until a court determines them. Nothing on this page states that any individual or firm has been found to have done what is alleged, except where a determination or a ban is named with its own reference.
Six places where two publicly reported figures look like they disagree. In four of them they do not; each pair is measured on a different basis, and both numbers are correct. The fifth is a published page that has not caught up. The sixth is a number that rises, counted twice.
AFCA's lead ombudsman gave about 3,429 as at the Professional Planner Licensee Summit, 11 June 2026. The CSLR's actuarial report works from around 3,100, reported by Professional Planner in 2026-07. These do not conflict; they count on different bases. A reporter placing them side by side should say so.
The levy estimate and the actuarial figures beneath it: Compensation Scheme of Last Resort, CSLR FY2027 revised levy estimate, 2026-07, reported by Professional Planner, FY27 CSLR advice levy reporting, 2026-07.
Three figures circulate and they count three different things. ASIC's own words are the anchor: less than 2,000 of around 11,000 Australians who invested approximately $1.1 billion in Shield and First Guardian have lodged complaints (ASIC 26-019MR, 5 February 2026). That around 11,000 counts people, each one once, whether they were in one fund or both. Finity's actuarial report for the CSLR describes around 11,800 investments, which counts fund positions: a person in both funds holds two. AFCA reports ASIC's estimate as around 12,000 investors (AFCA, 2026-03-05), which is the per-fund count rounded rather than a separate population. The overlap is visible in the complaint data: 524 of the about 3,429 complaints involve both funds. The number of people is therefore lower than the number of investments. Any figure above around 11,800 should be read as investments unless stated otherwise, and around 11,000 should be read as people.
AFCA’s own update, which carries the investor estimate: AFCA, Update on response to Shield and First Guardian collapse, 2026-03-05.
ASIC’s Federal Court proceedings against Mr Merhi are continuing. In mid-July 2026 the Federal Court lifted the travel restraint orders that had been in place since February 2025, on Mr Merhi’s own application and over ASIC’s opposition, as reported by Professional Planner, Financial Standard and IFA. ASIC declined to comment beyond confirming that it opposed the application, and the Court’s reasons are not published. ASIC’s own media release on the freezing and travel restraint orders has not been updated to record the lifting, and at its last revision it still recorded the restraint as running until November 2026, so the public register is behind the reporting. Lifting a travel restraint is an order about a person’s movements: it determines nothing in the substantive proceedings, which remain on foot, and no findings have been made against Mr Merhi.
Reported by Professional Planner, Travel-ban lifted reporting, 2026-07, Financial Standard, Travel-ban lifted reporting, 2026-07, and IFA, Travel-ban lifted reporting, 2026-07.
ASIC's live Shield enforcement page states that fewer than 2,000 of around 11,000 investors have lodged a complaint with AFCA. AFCA's own lead ombudsman gave about 3,429 on the Professional Planner Licensee Summit, 11 June 2026. ASIC is not wrong and is not negligent: its page carries a figure from an earlier point in the collapse, as published pages do. The consequence for a reporter is the part that matters. Relying on that page today understates the number lodged by about 1,400.
Check it in one click: ASIC, Shield Master Fund enforcement page (read 17 August 2026), read 2026-08-17. AFCA’s figure: Professional Planner Licensee Summit, 11 June 2026. The around 11,000denominator is ASIC’s own (ASIC, 26-019MR, 2026-02-05), so both numbers in the comparison are ASIC’s or AFCA’s, not mine.
On 3 March 2026 AFCA extended the insolvent firms' own AFCA memberships indefinitely, and because those memberships stay on foot, so does the deadline to complain about them. The door will not close on you while that runs. As Take Your Super Back puts it: because AFCA has extended the memberships for these firms, the deadline to make a complaint has also been paused.
Your own time limit has not moved: two years from a final response, or six years from when you first knew, whichever is earlier. Earlier complaints are allocated first, and AFCA will give notice before the firms' pause ends.
AFCA’s video update of 10 February 2026 gave 42determinations. Later in the same month AFCA’s Chief Ombudsman David Locke gave 44, including 5lead decisions. This page carries the later figure. Neither is wrong: a determinations count rises as AFCA issues determinations, and two true figures four weeks apart is what that looks like. A reporter checking this page against AFCA’s own video update will find the smaller number there, and should date whichever one they use.
AFCA, Video update on the Shield and First Guardian collapse, 2026-02-10 and SMS Magazine and IFA, David Locke, AFCA Chief Ombudsman, 2026-02. Neither figure has a URL recorded here. For the earlier one, search AFCA's own news listing at afca.org.au for its video update of 10 February 2026. For the later one, search SMS Magazine and IFA for David Locke's statement of late February 2026. Both are named above with their publisher and date so either can be checked without going through this page.
Every entry below carries its own source. Where only a month is sourced, no day is stated.
9 April 2025
FTI Consulting appointed liquidators of Falcon Capital Limited (First Guardian's responsible entity).
26 June 2025
United Global Capital and Next Generation Advice joint determination published.
29 August 2025
United Global Capital determination published.
28 November 2025
MWL Financial Services determination published.
12 December 2025
FSGA determination published.
December 2025
Macquarie undertakes to compensate affected Shield members (ASIC 25-215MR). Netwealth admits First Guardian failures and agrees to compensate affected investors, the same figure the table above gives (ASIC 25-307MR). ASIC sues Equity Trustees over Shield due-diligence failures (ASIC 25-176MR) and sues Diversa over First Guardian failures (ASIC 25-296MR). Exact days within the month are not sourced.
18 December 2025
APRA licence conditions imposed on Equity Trustees.
23 December 2025
APRA licence conditions effective on Diversa.
24 December 2025
InterPrac/Shield determination published.
3 March 2026
AFCA board extends the insolvent firms' own AFCA memberships indefinitely.
20 March 2026
Federal Court declares Macquarie contravened the Corporations Act in relation to Shield (ASIC 26-053MR).
8 April – 30 July 2026
On 8 April 2026, ASIC applied to the Federal Court for a receiver to be appointed to InterPrac Financial Planning, to investigate a proposed $50,000 sale of InterPrac by Sequoia Financial Group to Conquest Investment Partners (ASIC 26-064MR); InterPrac had around 1,409 open AFCA complaints at that time (Professional Planner Licensee Summit, 11 June 2026). On 30 July 2026, the Federal Court granted ASIC leave to discontinue that application, after InterPrac and Sequoia Financial gave undertakings to ASIC and the Court that they would not take certain steps under the Deed of Cross Guarantee in respect of the proposed sale. No receiver was ever appointed, and no finding was made.
11 June 2026
AFCA’s lead ombudsman gives the complaint count as about 3,429 (Professional Planner Licensee Summit, 11 June 2026).
Mid-July 2026
The Federal Court lifts the travel restraint orders on Ferras Merhi. See The discrepancy register.
A “lead decision” is AFCA’s chosen test case for a group of similar complaints. AFCA has published five lead decisions in this matter: the test cases that set the direction for the complaints that follow.
The five lead decisions cover:
Advice failed to consider Shield product disclosure issues including fee disclosure, financing structure, and shared directorship between the responsible entity and the investment manager.
This is the pattern AFCA has already found against MWL in one case: failures in product disclosure, financing structure and shared directorships. One determination, on its own facts. Where an advice firm like MWL can't pay, the federal Compensation Scheme of Last Resort (CSLR) can back an AFCA determination up to $150,000 per person per AFCA determination. You cannot be paid twice for the same losses.
AFCA case 12-25-233504, 28 November 2025
AFCA publishes its determinations through a search box rather than at a fixed address for each one. Paste a case number into the search field at that link to read the determination in full. That applies to every case number on this page.
Adviser at 5 Point Financial Planning recommended rolling $241,994.03 from Aware Super into a fund holding 60% Shield and First Guardian. The Federal Court has frozen Ferras Merhi’s assets: on 17 November 2025, with his consent, it extended those freezing orders until ASIC’s proceeding concludes, and that proceeding is on foot (ASIC 25-024MR).
$196,249.17
direct loss found by AFCA
This is what AFCA found for one investor in that pattern: a direct loss of $196,249.17. One determination, on its own facts. Where an advice firm like FSGA can't pay, the CSLR can back an AFCA determination up to $150,000 per person per AFCA determination. You cannot be paid twice for the same losses.
AFCA case 12-25-283219, 12 December 2025
Investment lacked diversification; complainant placed into a single high-risk fund where, in AFCA's words, "close to the entirety of [their] superannuation could be impacted or lost."
This is the pattern AFCA has already examined: a lack of diversification found to cause a direct loss. One determination, on its own facts. Where an advice firm like UGC can't pay, the CSLR can back an AFCA determination up to $150,000 per person per AFCA determination. You cannot be paid twice for the same losses.
AFCA case 12-25-233017, 29 August 2025
Combined lead decision covering both firms; same advice patterns, both now in liquidation.
This combined decision covers the same advice pattern from both firms, now both in liquidation. One determination, on its own facts, but it shows AFCA has already examined this exact pattern. Where a firm like these can't pay, the CSLR can back an AFCA determination up to $150,000 per person per AFCA determination. You cannot be paid twice for the same losses.
AFCA case 12-24-138385 & 12-25-212876, 26 June 2025
Complainant advised June 2022 to roll super into Shield via Macquarie. AFCA ordered InterPrac to pay despite Macquarie having already returned the capital.
$118,931.15
plus CPI-indexed interest from 5 September 2025
AFCA has already ordered InterPrac to pay $118,931.15 plus CPI-indexed interest from 5 September 2025, in one case sharing this pattern: super rolled into Shield via Macquarie, with the platform having already returned the capital. One determination, on its own facts. InterPrac is contesting AFCA's approach in the Federal Court and AFCA has paused issuing InterPrac determinations until those proceedings conclude, but it still accepts and investigates InterPrac complaints, so having one lodged still matters.
AFCA case 12-24-169714, 24 December 2025
Several of these lead decisions involve advice that routed super through a self-managed super fund. AFCA’s findings in those cases are about the advice itself. This service does not prepare self-managed super fund complaints. AFCA publishes an SMSF factsheet, and takeyoursuperback.com has SMSF checklists.
MWL Financial Services: the lead decision found the advice failed to consider several issues in the Shield product disclosure statement, including unclear fee disclosure, the financing structure and potential debt use within the fund, and shared directorship between the responsible entity and the investment manager. The case involved a joint Self-Managed Super Fund (SMSF) and trauma-insurance structure.
FSGA: ASIC alleges Mr Merhi signed more than 6,000 Statements of Advice over a three-year period (ASIC 25-184MR). The FSGA lead decision concerned an adviser at 5 Point Financial Planning who recommended a complainant roll over $241,994.03 from Aware Super into a fund holding 60% Shield and First Guardian. AFCA found a direct loss of $196,249.17 and ordered FSGA to compensate, less any liquidator returns.
ASIC’s Federal Court proceedings against Mr Merhi are continuing. In mid-July 2026 the Federal Court lifted the travel restraint orders that had been in place since February 2025, on Mr Merhi’s own application and over ASIC’s opposition, as reported by Professional Planner, Financial Standard and IFA. ASIC declined to comment beyond confirming that it opposed the application, and the Court’s reasons are not published. ASIC’s own media release on the freezing and travel restraint orders has not been updated to record the lifting, and at its last revision it still recorded the restraint as running until November 2026, so the public register is behind the reporting. Lifting a travel restraint is an order about a person’s movements: it determines nothing in the substantive proceedings, which remain on foot, and no findings have been made against Mr Merhi.
UGC: the lead decision noted that the recommended investment lacked diversification and that people were being placed into a single fund where, “if this specific investment did not perform, close to the entirety of [the complainant’s] superannuation could be impacted or lost.”
InterPrac: $118,931.15 plus interest equivalent to the change in the Australian consumer price index from 5 September 2025 to the date of payment, ordered after Macquarie had returned the capital. (AFCA’s approach in the InterPrac determinations is under Federal Court challenge and determinations are paused, see above.)
The same patterns appear across all five. These are AFCA’s own findings, in AFCA’s own words, from two of those determinations:
“The recommended strategy was unnecessarily risky, lacked diversification, and was unlikely to meet the complainant’s retirement objectives.”
“The advice was not appropriate or in the best interests of [the complainant]. The financial firm’s adviser did not make reasonable inquiries to obtain complete and accurate information about [the complainant’s] relevant circumstances, and the advice provided was not based on [the complainant’s] relevant circumstances.”
This is not my characterisation. It is AFCA’s, in the determinations themselves.
Equity Trustees and Diversa have returned nothing to date. A complaint against the trustee is the recovery route.
“Those involved extend to financial advisors and their licensees, lead generators, superannuation trustees, auditors, research houses and, at the very heart of the misconduct, the responsible entities of the failed funds themselves.”
Every advice firm holds an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL); the column below shows the AFSL number.
| Advice firm | AFSL | Current status | Who pays the determination | Complaints lodged with AFCA (as at 11 June 2026) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| InterPrac Financial Planning | AFSL 246638 · AFCA member 10416 | Current statusChallenging AFCA’s approach in the Federal Court; AFCA has paused issuing InterPrac determinations (including loss assessment) until those proceedings conclude; still accepting and investigating complaints | Who pays the determinationIf AFCA determines in your favour and InterPrac pays, the firm pays directly. InterPrac is contesting AFCA in the Federal Court and has delayed paying, so a direct payout is not assured; the CSLR backstop (up to $150,000 per person per AFCA determination) applies if it cannot pay. You cannot be paid twice for the same losses. | Complaints lodged with AFCA (as at 11 June 2026)1,409 |
| MWL Financial Services | AFSL 235096 · AFCA member 11054 | Current statusIn external administration since April 2025; AFCA membership extended with no fixed end date, the deadline is paused, not closed | Who pays the determinationCSLR backstops the determination up to $150,000 per person per AFCA determination. You cannot be paid twice for the same losses. | Complaints lodged with AFCA (as at 11 June 2026)241 |
| Financial Services Group Australia (FSGA) | AFSL 225985 · AFCA member 10327 | Current statusIn liquidation since late 2025; CSLR eligible | Who pays the determinationCSLR backstops the determination up to $150,000 per person per AFCA determination. You cannot be paid twice for the same losses. | Complaints lodged with AFCA (as at 11 June 2026)402 |
| United Global Capital (UGC) | AFSL 496179 | Current statusIn liquidation since 2025; CSLR eligible | Who pays the determinationCSLR backstops the determination up to $150,000 per person per AFCA determination. You cannot be paid twice for the same losses. | Complaints lodged with AFCA (as at 11 June 2026)289 |
| Next Generation Advice (NGA) | AFSL 302947 · AFCA member 12450 | Current statusIn liquidation since 2025; CSLR eligible | Who pays the determinationCSLR backstops the determination up to $150,000 per person per AFCA determination. You cannot be paid twice for the same losses. | Complaints lodged with AFCA (as at 11 June 2026)31 |
On 8 April 2026, ASIC applied to the Federal Court for a receiver to be appointed to InterPrac Financial Planning, to investigate a proposed $50,000 sale of InterPrac by Sequoia Financial Group to Conquest Investment Partners (ASIC 26-064MR); InterPrac had around 1,409 open AFCA complaints at that time (Professional Planner Licensee Summit, 11 June 2026). On 30 July 2026, the Federal Court granted ASIC leave to discontinue that application, after InterPrac and Sequoia Financial gave undertakings to ASIC and the Court that they would not take certain steps under the Deed of Cross Guarantee in respect of the proposed sale. No receiver was ever appointed, and no finding was made.
| Super trustee | AFSL | Current status | Money returned to investors |
|---|---|---|---|
| Macquarie Investment Management Limited | AFSL 237492 · AFCA member 10635 | Current statusActive; ASIC release 26-053MR (Federal Court declarations 20 March 2026) | Money returned to investorsApproximately $321 million returned to around 3,000 members in September 2025 |
| Netwealth Superannuation Services | AFSL 528032 | Current statusActive; ASIC release 25-307MR (Corporations Act contraventions admitted) | Money returned to investorsMore than $100 million committed in December 2025 to over 1,000 First Guardian investors |
| Equity Trustees Superannuation Limited | AFSL 229757 · AFCA member 10992 | Current statusActive; the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) imposed additional licence conditions December 2025; ASIC litigation (release 25-176MR) | Money returned to investorsNothing returned yet; the complaint against the trustee is the active route |
| Diversa Trustees Limited | AFSL 235153 · AFCA member 11961 | Current statusActive; the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) imposed additional licence conditions December 2025; ASIC litigation (release 25-296MR) | Money returned to investorsNothing returned yet; the complaint against the trustee is the active route |
Other platform brands route to the same four trustees. Your Choice Super, Australian Practical Superannuation (AusPrac) and Praemium Super all use Diversa as trustee. NQ Super, also marketed as Freedom of Choice, and Super Simplifier both use Equity Trustees.
| Fund | Responsible entity | Current status | Recovery route |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shield Master Fund | Responsible entity: Keystone Asset Management | Current statusKeystone in liquidation | Recovery routeNot covered by the CSLR, and AFCA may not be able to accept a complaint against a fund in liquidation. Recovery, if any, goes through the liquidator's proof-of-debt process, which is a different process. Liquidators now expect to recover around 70 per cent of what was invested, before further costs (Money Management). |
| First Guardian Master Fund | Responsible entity: Falcon Capital | Current statusFalcon Capital in liquidation since 9 April 2025 (Ross Blakeley and Paul Harlond, FTI Consulting) | Recovery routeNot covered by the CSLR, and AFCA may not be able to accept a complaint against a fund in liquidation. Recovery, if any, goes through the liquidator's proof-of-debt process, which is a different process. As of May 2026, the liquidators had recovered $6.2 million, with a net cash position of around $326,000 after liquidation and legal costs (Professional Planner). The difference in recovery outlook between the two funds is stark, and worth stating plainly. |
Where advice moved someone’s superannuation, several companies were typically involved, and each had its own duties to that person. The advice firm (InterPrac, MWL, FSGA, UGC, NGA, or others) recommended the move. Each one of these firms holds a licence from ASIC to give financial advice. The platform that held the superannuation (the super trustee) and the company that ran the fund (the responsible entity) each owed duties too. These are separate harms, not one harm split into percentages. Each is a separate company that owed a duty, and each needs its own complaint.
A complaint against the adviser alone may miss the route through the platform. A complaint against the platform alone may miss the residual harm caused by the advice itself.
“If you have concerns about the superannuation trustee or the investment platform provider managing your superannuation, it is open to you to submit a separate complaint with the relevant trustee.”
Read the full page on AFCA’s own site.
Two of the names above are easy to confuse: the super trustee and the responsible entity. It is worth a minute to separate them, because each one is a separate respondent and a separate complaint route.
Your money does not sit in a single company. It travels through a small chain. A super trustee (sometimes called the platform) is the company that legally holds your super and runs the member account. Macquarie, Netwealth, Equity Trustees and Diversa are super trustees. They are the gatekeepers: they choose which investment options sit on the platform menu, and they have a duty to keep unsafe ones off it.
A responsible entity (RE) is the company that operates the fund itself, the investment vehicle your money was placed into. Shield was operated by Keystone Asset Management. First Guardian was operated by Falcon Capital. Both Keystone and Falcon Capital are responsible entities; both are now in liquidation. A fund of this kind is called a managed investment scheme (MIS) under the Corporations Act, and the RE is the company legally accountable for how that scheme is operated.
The short version, in plain Australian:
AFCA cannot consider a complaint about the fund's decision to make an investment available, how much your investment made or lost, or how the fund was managed as a whole.
Each one is a separate respondent, and each one is a separate complaint route. That is why one complaint is rarely the whole story.
The federal Compensation Scheme of Last Resort (CSLR) can pay up to $150,000 per person per AFCA determination where the firm is insolvent and the determination relates to personal financial advice (and certain other regulated activities). You cannot be paid twice for the same losses. CSLR does not cover managed investment schemes.
AFCA can award up to $631,500 per claim for direct financial loss in a complaint lodged on or after 1 January 2024. There is no monetary cap on what AFCA can award in a superannuation complaint. The $150,000 CSLR cap applies only where the firm has shut down and cannot pay.
Both funds are in liquidation and are unlikely to have money to pay. Complaints against investment funds are not covered by the CSLR. AFCA may not be able to accept such a complaint. Claims against a fund in liquidation go through the liquidator's proof-of-debt process, which is a different process.
If you invested in Shield or First Guardian through a super platform, there is nothing you need to do in the liquidation process. The trustee of the super platform will make a claim to the liquidator for you. (Take Your Super Back, Dealing with the liquidators (Super Consumers Australia), page last updated 13 April 2026)
In practice:
Before the liquidation figures, the size of the other route. Finity’s actuarial report for the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort sets out a case of around 6,000 complaints at a cost of around $450 million, against an upper case of near $900 million. Those are the scheme’s own numbers for what compensation costs, not a forecast of what any one person receives. Compensation Scheme of Last Resort, CSLR FY2027 revised levy estimate, 2026-07, reported by Professional Planner, FY27 CSLR advice levy reporting, 2026-07.
FTI Consulting, liquidator of Falcon Capital Limited has recovered $6.2 million. Of that, $3.8 million has already been paid in liquidation and legal fees, leaving $2.4 million in cash. Professional Planner, First Guardian liquidation continues to eat up recovered funds, 2026-05
Still to come out of that cash:
That leaves about $326,000 in net cash.
These are the liquidation's own reported figures for what has been recovered and what pursuing it has cost. They are not a forecast of what any member will receive, and the liquidation is not the same route as an AFCA complaint.
No equivalent recovery figure is published here for the Shield Master Fund. The available figures could not be reconciled to one current, checkable source, and a recovery rate is not a number worth guessing at: a person who reads one stops looking for the complaint that might get them more.
A short list for anyone who filed in February and has not been back since.
This is not a plan. Every one of these exists and runs today.
A form that turns you away in the first minute if this service cannot help you, before it asks your name or your number.
An interview that takes your account in your own words, spoken or typed, instead of making you fill in boxes about the worst year of your life.
A document where every sentence is one of three things and nothing else: your own words, unedited; a quotation from a published source with its case number and date beside it; or arithmetic you can check line by line.
A loss figure worked out using AFCA's own published method.
And a check at the end that stops the document instead of sending it, if anything in it is not right.
That last one is the line to read if you only read one. The most recent document this produced was stopped by that check rather than sent. I ran it myself, end to end, on test answers.
What I will not give you. A person. Nobody who uses this service will be introduced to a journalist, quoted, or named, whatever the story is worth. And I should be straight with you: the service is not open, so there is nobody to introduce even if I were willing. The answer would be the same either way. If you need someone affected on camera, AFCA, Super Consumers Australia and the Financial Rights Legal Centre all deal with people directly and none of them are me.
And I will not predict what AFCA will decide in anyone's case, including in general terms.
Where the service is up to. It is not open. There is a waitlist on the home page and nothing else. If you write that people can use it today, that will be wrong.
If you need a sentence describing this service, this one is accurate: Graham Marsland runs No Aussie Left Behind, a document preparation service for people affected by the Shield and First Guardian collapses, operated by Graham Marsland Pty Ltd (ABN 97 691 274 905). He is an accountant by training. He is not a lawyer, not a financial adviser, and not anyone's representative at AFCA. Customers lodge their own complaints, in their own names, at afca.org.au, which is free.
Every figure on this page carries its source and the date it was published. If one is wrong, tell me and I will correct it and say that I did.
How to reach me. Email is best. I answer within two business days and I answer everything.
Vision. There is one on the home page, under two and a half minutes. Any network may use it without asking and without crediting it. The direct file is here: https://wlvjcsfbmxjnhzdvxyov.supabase.co/storage/v1/object/public/homepage-assets/introduction.mp4
The number. The falling count on the home page is served at https://noaussieleftbehind.com/api/cohort/remaining, and any newsroom may read it directly. It is not a live feed and it must not be presented as one. Every figure it returns carries its own source and its own publication date. AFCA publishes complaint data by firm every month in its Datacube, but it does not publish a count by collapse, so the Shield and First Guardian figure appears only when AFCA states it. The most recent is 3,429, given by AFCA's lead ombudsman on 11 June 2026. If the number goes on screen, that date goes on screen with it.
The firm-by-firm table on this page is sourced and dated, and so are the five lead decisions. Use any of it without attribution.
No Aussie Left Behind is a service operated by Graham Marsland Pty Ltd (ABN 97 691 274 905).
Graham Marsland Pty Ltd · ABN 97 691 274 905 · Melbourne
I reply personally within 2 business days.