New research conducted by Momentum Media’s research house Momentum Intelligence has revealed that while advisers are overwhelmingly planning to support the Liberal Party at the next election, an issue that transcends politics is overregulation.
Momentum Intelligence conducted its Insight Survey in December 2021, on 2,842 professions across several key industries including 320 people operating in financial and wealth management, spanning all voting-age demographics.
Overall, the Liberal Party garnered most support with three in five respondents admitting they plan to throw their support behind a Coalition government.
In the financial and wealth management industry alone, the Liberals snagged 60 per cent of the vote, compared to just 27 per cent for Labor.
But while their party preferences varied, a majority of respondents from the financial and wealth management industry cited red tape as a key consideration ahead of the vote.
This goes hand in hand with the industry predominantly selecting small-business interests as essential when given a list of voting considerations to rank.
Taxation followed with 52 per cent.
“From an industry perspective, they are making it harder and harder to run an efficient, low-cost financial services practice. The regulatory layering, the cost of compliance are increasing,” a Labor voter said.
“It’s becoming more and more complex and inefficient, not necessarily helping consumers – in fact some changes are causing detriment which is frustrating.”
Similarly, a Liberal voter noted: “I would prefer to see some of the current strangulation by regulation eased.”
Interestingly, others expressed worry a change in government could mean more red tape, not less.
“Labor coming in [and] making more changes to the red tape that already exists for advisers. We have been through so much in the last couple of years and it just feels like a new government will mean a new direction simply because they are in power and must assert some image that they are managing the financial planner world when the new changes from the last few years alone have not had time to work and sort themselves out,” a Coalition voter said.
However, a common perception is that Labor has yet to clarify its agenda regarding advisers, an agenda that could potentially swing votes.
“If Labour promised to make only necessary changes that are minimal, I would consider voting for them,” a respondent said.
Only the FSU has ever helped me. Only Bill Shorten has ever spoken to me about this. I’d hate to vote for the ALP or the Libs but the Libs have attacked my industry and treated me like a criminal for long enough!
I’ll be voting Labor, because once my capitalist business gets banned by them, and all possible competition, including SMSF’s to their Super fund honey pot is finally eliminated, I’ll be finally able to get a 9-5 job in one of there Super Fund call centres…working from the Philippines. Only then, will I be working less hours and more money and be able to say I’m a real financial adviser and just tell everyone to salary sacrifice regardless of their circumstances. If my comrades do have questions about my Advice I’ll tell them to go to our website or Tik Tok, or just disconnect them, or send them the wrong form to fill out. Who knows, I could work my way up ( i mean marry the right family) through that Industry Super fund and eventually get a role on the board. Once on that board I’ll be the leader of our Country. Alas, perhaps my lofty dreams are too much, and I’ll vote for the Mono Rail Party.
It amazes me that anyone associated with the financial services industry could plan on voting Liberal at the next election. The lunacy of their actions, and lack of control of ASIC and APRA, have decimated the industry. It has all been Liberal led. Hume and Frydenberg have been negligent.
Because anyone with over 15 years of adulthood behind them knows that Labour will ruin the economy and markets and that is worse for business than red tape and regulation.
Agreed with the Labor summary but still, why vote Liberal?
Our industry, at every level, and historical bad practices by some brought on the increased regulation – and it was needed. The way to “improve” the advisers’ lot is to prove to the public and the government that the industry can better regulate itself and provide better, more reliable and more cost effective advice. The ball is our court but it will take a few years for us to prove we are better.
Some of us don’t have “a few years”Jen…….
We all had “a few years” and some used them and some didn’t. What I’m saying is that nothing that has happened over the last few years would have surprised anyone. We advise client to be aware of the future and take action ASAP so why should we?
The current predicament is 10+ years in the making. In that time there have been multiple scandals and zero leadership from any of the peak bodies. I am certainly not defending them, but Government had no option but to put in place lots of regulation to try and defend the community.
Setting aside the fact that most of the regulations are BS and don’t make things better for consumers, the only way out of this is for the industry to show the community and Government that we can self regulate. Unfortunately this will take years because there are so many vested interests that want to retain the current (or past) arrangements.
IMO the quicker the industry moves to a model where advice is separated from product manufacturers the better.
To assist the industry to move to a model where advice is separated from product manufacturers requires the removal of [b]BAD REGULATIONS[/b] and adjusting existing regulation so that we are left with [b]GOOD REGULATION[/b].
A true believer. So in your world, I guess you don’t see or want to see the fact that Product Providers are already able to and already do provide their members with affordable advice?
And so product providers should provide basic advice. As advisers we need to to elevate our client proposition to add real value. We all know, if we are honest, that some of the so called value propositions to clients were smoke and mirrors and in a worst case scenario it was just an administration service dressed up as on going advice. We all needed to be cruel on ourselves to ensure our long term security
“And so product providers should provide basic advice”
Why? I though the issue of “conflicted advice” has been clearly demonstrated?
“As advisers we need to to elevate our client proposition to add real value”
Goes without saying – but not sure how this justifies Product Manufactures being allowed to provide advice?
This sounds very much like a good description of Intra Fund Advice to me.
“We all know, if we are honest, that some of the so called value propositions to clients were smoke and mirrors and in a worst case scenario it was just an administration service dressed up as on going advice. We all needed to be cruel on ourselves to ensure our long term security”
But here is the issue. Are they providing genuine financial advice (with things like leave our underperforming fund) or are they providing advice aimed solely at selling their own products?
As an independent advice company, we don’t have the luxury of knowing our advice fees are being subsidised by the investment fees from the products we recommend.
How do we self regulate when self regulation was removed due to the actions of the FPA & AFA at the Royal Commission. Yet their members still stand beside them. We’ve now got ASIC as our self regulator as per the recommendations. The person overseeing your behaviour with the code is not your peers but now a sales rep for a fund manager. Your code is being policed by someone’s who title is Sales Coach at NAB.
I can’t agree I’m afraid.
How can you not agree?
I like your sentiment, but with more clients demanding our help and fewer advisers around, “more affordable” is a fantasy until perhaps 2030 when (experienced) adviser numbers have rebound a little.
Why do a survey of advisers political preferences prior to an election where the current Govt knows they have well and truly put financial advisers offside and would be worried about which way they may vote ??
Why do this now when the Govt may well be considering a different approach to the absolute diabolical mess they have instigated over the last 7-8 years ?????
Why do this now when financial advisers may actually have a bit traction for the first time in a decade ??
It’s irresponsible and takes power away from the financial advice community at this present time.
Well the LNP will never get my vote while ever they’re being lead by Scott Morrison, the liar from the shire. They’re even less likely to get it if they replace him with the useless Josh Frydenberg or the monster Peter Dutton.
Issues that impact me personally are less concerning then issues that confront the whole country. That Morrison still attracts any support is simply evidence of a populace that is completely removed from politics…
Please don’t use the phrase “over regulation”. Activists and lobbyists believe that more regulation means more consumer protection. They will always oppose any attempt to reduce it.
What we have in financial advice is “[b]bad regulation[/b][i][/i]”. It is regulation that makes things worse for advisers and consumers alike. Bad regulation doesn’t need to be reduced, it needs to be [b]fixed[/b][i][/i]. There is far more chance of widespread support to fix bad regulation, than to reduce over regulation.