According to an announcement today, Adam Youkhana, the general manager of YBR’s wealth division, has launched several initiatives.
These include a new phone-based advice team to offer customers life insurance superannuation support over the phone. The new team is due to launch in Q4 this year.
YBR also introduced new minimum requirements for employing financial advisers. Now, candidates must meet the new minimum TASA/TPB requirements and they must hold a minimum advanced diploma education qualification.
They must also have a minimum of 24 months experience within the last three years and must have kept up CPD points for the past three years, the statement said.
Other changes to the wealth division include a new wealth CRM known as Provisio, which is “loaded” with YBR propriety Statements of Advice and enables 80 per cent of advice recommendations to be written in-house, the statement said.
Mr Youkhana also introduced three new lower cost index options with an all up fee of 70 bps and made the YBR Model Portfolios available on Macquarie and Asgard platforms.
These new wealth initiatives are intended to boost YBR branches’ margins and improve efficiency by increasing client facing time.
Mr Youkhana said, “Wealth momentum continues to grow across revenue, FUM and PUM for the first half of 2016-17, however the focus is on greater participation of branches across all aspects of wealth.
“Our focus is on further enhancing and expanding our wealth dealer group services to accelerate advice and improve efficiencies.”
I think its time they had a good hard look at the senior management team and bring in some of the entrepreneur experts that are currently turning wealth businesses around in these troubled times
Then you may see some traction YBR
Clients are not necessarily looking for lower fees on their investments, they are wishing to understand the strategy and the value that they are getting for that advice. Financial Planning groups looking to offer cheaper options rather than providing the ongoing strategic advice around a clients overall financial situation are largely missing the point.
Product should be the last piece of the financial planning process. The focus should be around improving the clients overall position (including debt reduction, cashflow management, budgeting etc) and not on products sales.
Lower cost ‘indexed’ products costin 70 bips!!! Wow, that’s compelling value (not)
All this shows is that the Titanic isn’t the only ship that was thought to never fail, phone based advice templates OMG do they think they are selling mobile phones and internet connections lol
This is the genius of YBR. When the company is in trouble, just come out with more nonsense. You know, sort of like shooting yourself in one foot, reloading and shooting yourself in the other foot so that you collapse…..pure genius in YBR, wouldn’t you say
Haha mate its a mortgage broking business… They struggle with the concept of someone having to actually pay fees for advice, having to service a client ongoing and there actually being compliance. They think financial planning is as easy as mortgage broking where people approach you for your free service and hassle you to get them into their chosen home asap!
The music is playing, the deck chairs are being move around but the good ship YBR is still sinking.
Follow the yellow brick road, follow the yellow brick road…..right over a cliff me thinks
[i]”These new wealth initiatives are intended to boost YBR branches’ margins, broaden their services and improve their efficiency by increasing client facing time.”[/i]
Improve the client outcome must be a close fourth intended outcome of these changes
Why is it that this advice model is suitable. Phone based advice, 80 essentially templates to slot clients into while acting as fronts for Macquarie and Asgard. What if the client wants to talk about matters outside of this. An SMSF involving property, family trusts, estate planning, etc. Selling product is not advice. YBR, ISN all banks have been giving this as an offering for a long time while genuine advisers in risk and or investment get bunched in with this ilk and then get slammed by regulators. Yet these dills do this under the veil of advice when clearly it is product selling by another name. Best interest is served you say, my question is merely whose interest are we referring to ? Not the client of a YBR ISN or banks……..
The YBR model might have its problems. But you think they should be putting their clients into SMSFs with property?! Inhouse administered SMSFs are a blatant conflict of interest. SMSFs are a completely unnecessary overhead for all but the top 1-2% of people these days. And concentrating clients’ super into an overvalued asset class when they probably have most of their non super assets already concentrated in that same overvalued asset class is outrageously irresponsible.
I thought it was only accountants aligned to property spruikers who were still pushing the “Property in SMSF” scam.
I agree mate… I did however just look on their website and they offer the full SMSF service including administration as you say.
Brokers there would love this to be able to write the loan… I do also wonder if the broker can refer to a ‘property expert’ and receive a significant commission as well? Other mortgage broking firms can and they get up to 2% of the purchase price for referring….
Just because it (SMSF & Property) doesnt align with your view of the world doesnt necessarily mean that the clients wont benefit from such a strategy. Maybe it’s your own conflict of interests which means that you cant charge 1% on FUM if the client has it in proeprty….
While I don’t charge FUM, don’t supposed you work for a property orientated company, Tony?
I just love the way advisers and accountants pushing conflicted inhouse SMSFs try to justify it by saying “it’s not as bad as XYZ strategy”. Just because some other potential strategies are flawed, doesn’t make inhouse SMSF any less conflicted. There are plenty of good advice/product options available these days that involve no conflict of interest whatsoever.
looking at the new minimum requirements for employing new advisers – were there any previous requirements?
I expect breathing would be one….having a pulse another and then being able to sell sell sell. All important I’m sure to these folks
so we have an organisation that is only now looking at TPB requirements OMG !!!
I do hope Peter Kell does not pick up on this story