AIOFP launches attack on platform model

The AIOFP have been no strangers to courting controversy in the advice world, including its recent 15-point plan for the advice profession, including reducing drastically reducing the number of professional associations representing advisers.   

So, it will be interesting to see how its latest assertion will be taken by the industry – that advisers are merely glorified “babysitters” for RPMs, and that they effectively “own” advisers’ clients.  

X

Continue to Website

“The FGS failure and ASIC’s attack on Macquarie/Netwealth as the trustee has exposed an inconvenient truth the RPM’s have been concealing from the adviser profession since 2014; they technically own the clients and are responsible for their advice and product exposure,” the association said.  

“Advisers are merely acting as baby-sitters supervising the clients on behalf of the RPM’s.”  

In a summary of its 2026 conference in Bali provided to ifa, the association argued that RPM’s now need advisers to supervise clients on a day-to-day basis, suggesting they can’t do it themselves, and that this task is coming “at a great cost to the financial advice profession”.  

The AIOFP’s solution to this? Rejecting RPM conditions.  

“It is time for financial advisers to reject the RPM conditions, particularly where the platform owns the in-house trustee, a profoundly conflicted arrangement that gives the RPM total control of every aspect and a second clip of the FUA ticket.” 

“The only way to avoid the RPM taking control of a financial advisers’ clients and therefore their business is simply not giving them your clients savings in the first place, especially if the RPM is the trustee as well. 

“These include HUB24, Netwealth, CFS, AMP, Macquarie, etc. – the only independent trustee platforms are DASH and Praemium.” 

It added: “Alternative structures to consider are MDA, SMSF’s and white label platforms.” 

The AIOFP also ruminated on recent challenges the advice profession has face, including the rise of technologically driven advice, the Shield First Guardian debacle and the mass exodus of advisers from the profession. 

Anticipating backlash to this assertion, the AIOFP said that while, some would argue associations should stay away from platforms, they say there is an “overwhelming demand from members” to protect them, their businesses and their clients, taking precedence over philosophy.  

“We cannot see the RPM’s changing their business model anytime soon.” 

This follows the AIOFP’s recent partnership with on of their trusted platforms, DASH.

The partnership has involved the launch of a white label platform, Foundation, which they state will address the issues presented in the summary.

“Independent advisers are running small businesses. The ability for a platform to restrict access without cause creates a real and immediate risk to those businesses,” the association’s chief executive, Peter Johnston, said at the time.

“Foundation is about putting that risk back under control – ensuring advisers retain access to the platform while their clients’ assets remain in place.”

DASH executive director of strategy, Darren Pettiona, said the principles of Foundation align with DASH’s long-standing commitment to adviser-centric, client-first design.

“Strong governance and clear standards are critical to the long-term sustainability of the advice industry. Protecting end investors and ensuring high-quality advice outcomes should always be the priority,” he said.