Everyone has an opinion, and some people feel compelled to speak out. Share your views, opinions and insights with financial advisers accross Australia today. If you'd like to write a blog or to submit a letter to the editor please contact the editorial team on firstname.lastname@example.org or call 02 9922 3300.
in a free market system we should have the freedom to contract. the client and adviser should agree how much and how to pay
most brilliant comment. ASIC need to be revamped. they are completely out of touch.
that's the issue. we have no representation. but the other half of your post is also very correct, too hard, too expensive & too complex.
No one is interested in solving the real problem. Because the perpetrators of the real problems mask the real problems and they use their lobby group and their pots of money and use regulation to kill off the competition by blaming the individual financial planner. who in the scheme of things is just a pawn. when you don't have a voice at the table no one hears you. that's all folks.
correct, a distinction needs to be made for administrative oversight vs willful misconduct. what profession or society are a perfect people who make no mistakes. please name one. you can't and that is because there are none. this zealotry has got to stop.
If we wanted to be treated like professionals and want to become a profession that is held in high regard, we need to emulate other professions, perhaps some that have been around for a lot longer. How do they treat their members? how do they position their members? how do they treat incidence of misconduct (both minor and serious ones). this naming and shaming is infantile
Have you ever heard of the saying, " Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones? I would should suggest that such a voyeuristic approach is out of order. There is always going to be a percentage of individuals in any industry that fail moral and honesty principals. By all means punish them but these people may also have families. Why humiliate them as well? I am a CFP an I have level education 9 status and I have seen rogues at play in my 36 years practising in this industry but I do not agree with the chest thumping of our alleged industry representatives constantly calling for metaphorical executions. Frankly I am disgusted.
We have all seen recently the actions of CBA playing the blame game and blaming individual financial planners. yet we all know that the people behind this are the middle management forcing staff to meet a sales/revenue target. In doing so CBA damaged the reputation of all financial planners, not only CBA. Naming and shaming goes towards perpetuating this myth and avoids the real problem. The real problems in the advice industry lay with the big end of town and product manufacturers, dealer groups and not the planner in the coal face trying to run a business.
Is this what the FSC has told the AFA to do to get rid of some more competition. Would the AFA have to have agreement from the FSC on who they named and shamed? For example CBA or Macquarie have not been named or shamed by the AFA. But then again they are a sponsoring "partner"
institutional refugees now that's gold
Many of the aspects of FOFA simply show how out of touch the regulators and politicians are with the issues of fees and commissions with peoples super and investments.
If i'm charging a client a fee (percentage based or flat amount) it is detailed in the SOA, it is shown on there super, investment or personal bank statement. They see it upfront and they are shown it all the time. The client has the ability to turn it off if i dont provide the service I've promised. Or turn it off even if i do... But still i have to do an FDS to confirm this every year and get the client to Opt-In on an ongoing basis.
Contrast this to the clients we have in products that include an embedded commission. The client is advised of the comms in the SOA, and that's it. It's deducted from their unit price of their investments and isnt shown, cant be cancelled, and is paid even if i never see the client again, never offer any service. And even if the client decides to have me taken off the policy as the adviser, the comms component still roles on and is pocketed by the fund manager. No FDS for this, no need for Opt-In, nothing.
I believe this is only for advisers from the smaller companies not the big ones otherwise the likes of the director of Whittaker Mcnaught who has never exposed his adviser for his 20 breaches of the coprorations act and ay least 6 acts of fraud including unorthorized trading as with the person from the CBA who removed documents from the clients files during a dispote will never be named and shamed
How can the AFA as an association or the AFA leadership even think they can be taken seriously after the LIF is amazing. I can't even comment on this as I can't take them seriously. Name and shame corruption by all means but start with the AFA, FPA and FSC.
Woop Doop, how about concentrating your efforts into doing more to ensure our day to day role as ETHICAL Advisers is a little easier instead of bowing down like your mates at the FPA to ALL legislative changes put in place.
Dont really care about Grub advisers but do care about the poor clients exposed to them and the service I am able to give my clients going forward.
Does this same principle apply to in competent staff and executives of our various associations ? If a member asks for clarification on such things as MDA s from the association and don't get a response DO we shame them or does this come down to an honest oversight ?
I think deliberate and willful unethical behavior should be named and shamed, but issues such as administration oversight and the like should be left behind closed doors with training being given. You can help people who learn from their mistakes, but you can't help those who intentionally and knowingly do the wrong thing.
I agree that naming and shaming of people who brazenly commit fraud or other misconduct involving greed and so on but not against advisers who make an honest mistake then get hung out to dry by the regulator and AFA/FPA. People make mistakes, no matter whether you're a surgeon, lawyer, judge or other, we are all imperfect and make honest mistakes and these types of errors are not deserving of bearing a cross for a lifetime and never being able to earn a living again, come on people wake up and use common sense not everything is black and white there are principles involved too!
"advisers fleeing rival institutions"
Be careful what you wish for.........
Aleks , I would have thought IOOF are pretty close to being an "Insto" themselves. It is becoming quite evident you have a personal issue with the big 5.