While declining to name the dollar figure, Adviser Ratings spokesperson Christopher Zinn confirmed to ifa that the list of advisers appearing on the website – which allows consumers to rate advisers and post comments about them – was provided to the start-up by Rainmaker following a financial transaction between the two.
“It was a commercial transaction,” Mr Zinn said. “Although I would also add that [Adviser Ratings director Angus Woods] has been compiling a database for some time as well, but some of it did come from Rainmaker.”
While some commentators have welcomed the move – such as shadow treasurer Chris Bowen – a number of advisers have voiced displeasure over their inclusion on the site without permission, requiring them to opt-out.
One financial adviser who has already taken steps to opt out pointed the finger squarely at Rainmaker, suggesting the sale of personal information was a breach of trust.
“Rainmaker has on-sold my personal information for a price and I think that is appalling,” the adviser said.
“They have secured my data through my readership of [Rainmaker-owned publication] Financial Standard and attending events and conferences and they have no right to sell that for a commercial gain,” he added.
Another AMP-aligned adviser told ifa it was “odd” that his business had never been approached before being included on the list.
FPA chief executive Mark Rantall said more broadly that the commercial nature of the Adviser Ratings venture means his organisation will be “keeping a watching brief”.
“I would argue that financial planning is a far more critical service than whether you’re happy with your hotel stay or not, so we need to make sure the data is accurate,” Mr Rantall told ifa.
“This is a commercial transaction and we need to be careful about the outcomes of that and what the profit drivers are,” he said, adding that he sees the Adviser Ratings website as fundamentally different from the BT/Westpac register.
However, Mr Zinn hit back at suggestions that the website’s business model colours its reliability.
“We don’t have anyone behind us with an agenda or interest,” Mr Zinn said.
“It was Angus [Woods] and I that want to do this in the consumer interest. We have put in our own funds and resources so obviously there needs to be a return at some stage.”
Mr Zinn said the FAQ page of Adviser Ratings has been updated to assist advisers interested in opting out.
Ratings are subjective and from a legal point of view dangerous. Ratings do not include the issues of professionalism, independence, conflicts of interest, fiduciary best interest duty and the scandals that seem to plague the financial planning industry.
So I could just hop on this stupid website and pay out on all local advisers and talk myself up with countless fake testimonials.
What a load of crap.
This is an attempt to get advisers to complete profiles and then match up those seeking advice with advisers and take a cut by selling leads to advisers.
In 15 years in the industry, I’ve probably got 1 clients from yellow pages or google, the rest come from referral partners and word of mouth. I hope they fail miserably, but I also hope the site isnt mis-used in the meantime. I’ve emailed them to take me off their site.
As a consumer who has gone through the process, it is interesting that the owners of this site are collecting information about me, my investments, my age, the amount of fees I pay my adviser. Then they ask for personal contact details from me. Can’t wait to see what marketing they try to do to win me across to their preferred advice options. If it is independently owned, it wont be for long.
To James S…
As advisers we are accountable to our licensee, our clients, the public and community and to ourselves.
We are not accountable to Adviser Ratings.
This isn’t about advisers not wishing to be accountable, it is about the principle by which the owners of Adviser Ratings have so arrogantly employed to establish their database and effectively their business.
Is it a conflict of interest when a so called consumer advocate website business may also be construed as providing general financial advice and is therefore required to be an Authorised Representative?
Get this…Adviser Ratings claim under their “system” that they will “continually track your adviser on your behalf”, including “whether your portfolio is performing the way it should be”!
Are all 18,000 advisers comfortable that Adviser Ratings may be advising their clients on their investment portfolio performance?
Interesting argument from “Consumer Advocate”. Wants transparency but is not prepared to put his or her real name to the comment!
Not sure what the fuss is about. If people want to know about you before they see you. They will generally suss you out online.
Linkedin has been kinda doing this for years via there “recommendations” section. We need to be and should be accountable.
As for other ratings site we can rate a whole range of services including tradie’s
To Consumer Advocate…..I really don’t think it’s that transparent do you?
The Adviser Ratings site also identifies a “hush hush” section whereby the consumer can request to liase backward and forward with Adviser Ratings only and it is made very clear that the adviser will not be informed of the communication!
“It’s our little secret” scenario.
So, what we have is a pseudo survellience process and how will the adviser know whether Adviser Ratings are advising or encouraging the consumer or client to leave the adviser?
How would an adviser know that Adviser Ratings are not encouraging consumers on the quiet to consider an alternative iPraxis Pty Ltd Authorised Representative, as Adviser Ratings are a Corporate Authorised Representative of this AFSL.?
So we have a so-called “consumer focussed” service being licensed by a competitor AFSL!
Could this be deemed a conflict of interest?
[quote name=”consumer advocate”]I actually think the Adviser Ratings website is a great exercise in transparency. If you’re not a crook you have nothing to fear. I commend Rainmaker for helping to make the project a reality. Unlike IFA, a publication that is once again proving it acts in the adviser’s interests and not the consumer.[/quote]
I assume you would foolishly support a ratings system for other professionals such as Doctors, Lawyers accountants. What about one for tradespeople such as plumbers, electricians and bricklayers, etc. You could start a whole new industry so that all of the above plus others are rated. Who benefits? Certainly not the consumer, only the organisation who is charging some one else to be rated. In other words an organisation which is not actually doing anything constructive to help people.
I actually think the Adviser Ratings website is a great exercise in transparency. If you’re not a crook you have nothing to fear. I commend Rainmaker for helping to make the project a reality. Unlike IFA, a publication that is once again proving it acts in the adviser’s interests and not the consumer.
is it Adviser Ratings or rainmaker that have been disrespectful craig? the ratings people dont owe us anything, i have been going to financial standard events for years. maybe not anymore
The process that has been employed by Adviser Ratings not only by paying for data without consent, but also by automatically including advisers details without consent is beginning to appear to be a very contentious issue.
Adviser Ratings should delete all adviser data from their website immediately and then ask for expressions of interest and consent from those advisers who voluntarily wish to be included on their website. For those advisers who elect to be included then a fee could then be charged to those advisers. In other words, a user pays system. Over time, if the benefits of being included on the site gain momentum and acceptance, then more advisers may elect to join, hence more revenue for Adviser Ratings. The trouble is they have already paid a fee for the data to Rainmaker and already treated the adviser community with total disrespect by not asking for consent or agreement first.
I would say they’re trying to do a Superatings comparison type website, hand out some medals but you have to pay to use them, hold an annual sponsored gala event for adviser of the year blah blah. Then they’ll try and sell it off to…Superatings who are owned by Lonsec.
email
admin@adviserratings.com.au
and ask to have your records removed.
Don’t bother calling they don’t answer or call back
http://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy…
report them.
So.., i’m on there.
Listed at my old licensee.
In an area i don’t live in.
Really, this is the standard??
i know how you ended up on the list robert, see the article. if an advsier did what rainmaker did they would probably get an asic ban! treating client data like that is not a good look. maybe we should start a media ratings website.
How did I end up on the list?
This is what I would like to know.
I have requested a Cease & Desist.
“Adviser Ratings has strict processes in place, both automated and manual to verify each customer review. We have a dedicated technology and moderation team that check all the reviews posted to the Adviser Ratings website”
The information they have now is already incorrect as JC indicated below.
Misinformed people have made trying to “fix” fin. planning a bigger industry than what actual planning is
If you need to justify your existence by peacocking on some website. Seriously.
It has been reported that Adviser Ratings have rated every CFP qualified adviser on their database as a “Gold Adviser”, based on an achieved level of accreditation without assessing other individual criteria regarding the adviser’s background, experience, their compliance history or even whether they have actively provided any advice at all within the last 3 years!
The rating of “Gold Adviser”, indicates on the Adviser Ratings site that the adviser meets or qualifies at between
80%-89% of the required criteria to achieve that status which is only second to the top rating of Platinum Adviser. So, if the database of 18,000 advisers includes every CFP in Australia, Adviser Ratings are effectively telling the public that every CFP is of the same standard, without having conducted any due diligence or assessment on these advisers. Many of these advisers may well be of a very high standard however, it is negligent to provide the perception to the public that they all are.
Laurie Pennell is correct the 18,000 financial adviser listings on the controversial Adviser Ratings website is a joke a very risky business!
It can enable clients access to names included in the database of people who aren’t actually authorised advisers! Thats just as dishonest as any institution giving flawed advice then attempting to shift the liability to an unauthorised person.
All ratings over an industry as complex as in financial advice, should and could not afford to have clients ever placed in the hands of inappropriate or unlicensed persons at any stage.
More particularly the accredited adviser is trained in the not to fail strategies and understands the importance of the KNOW YOUR CLIENT RULE. It is enshrined in the ASIC regulations before any financial product advice is given. Without a shadow of a doubt advisers will have to demonstrate that they have got it right. You may as well pick a name out of a hat!
I did complete the rating but was disappointed that there were no questions re community involvement, esp in rural areas,and pro bono work was not mentioned.
If Planners purchase a book of business personal client information is transferred to the purchasing entity. That said, we still have to disclose that personal information has been transferred so clients are informed. Shameful that personal info has been passed on behind our backs.
The premise of this “idea” is flawed, comparing personal financial advice to rating a hotel is absurd.
Buying personal info is an indictment on our commercial world.
Purporting that the info is correct when in fact is it not is misrepresentation.
I have just checked this ratings site for those in the Shepparton area. This is a joke as many of those listed on the site are accountants who are neither qualified nor authorised to give financial planning advice. I also take exception to being listed on a site which has no validity. None of the so called advisers listed on the Shepparton area are rated so how is this helpful for potential clients. Christopher Zinn needs to get a real job and stop running down those who are actually trying to help people acheive their lifestyle and financial goals. I cancelled my online subscription for Financial Standard 12 months ago and this just shows the lack of credibility it now has to sell peoples personal details to Christopher Zinn. This is a disgrace.
Sadly there appears to be names included in the database of people who aren’t actually authorised advisers – how are poor customers supposed to know?
Is this going to be like Gumtree where you can pay some dollars to get your name up in lights for a few weeks?