In an exclusive interview with ifa, Dave Akers, the director of channel strategy and services across AMP’s various advice businesses, opened up about the approved product list and research process at Australia’s largest financial adviser.
Mr Akers said the key to an appropriate APL was ensuring “both quality and choice” and striking a balance between due diligence, risk mitigation and a wide range of investment options.
“The choice can’t be excessively wide that is slows down an adviser to efficiently find a solution to their clients’ problem,” Mr Akers said. “This is an efficiency objective we have when setting an APL.”
Asked to comment on the recent white paper arguing for greater disclosure requirements for institutionally-aligned advisers – which the AIOFP and consultancy Smart Compliance co-authored – Mr Akers revealed AMP has conducted its own research on the topic.
In the lead-up to the launch of the new AMP Advice subsidiary, the company conducted consumer research on the issues of “independence and brand”, Mr Akers said.
“What this research showed is that as long as you are clear [about ownership ties] from the get-go – which is what our Hillross and Charter advisers will do – then the consumer is happy,” he said.
“It is less about the logo on the door and more about the conversations between adviser and client. There is almost too much disclosure already in the various documents relating to ownership. It is pretty clear to me who the client is dealing with.”
Mr Akers said the idea of vertical integration leading to cross-selling was “not a licensee proposition” and that the manufacturer of a financial product is not a major factor in an adviser’s recommendation patterns.
The comments follow a panel session at the 17th annual Wraps, Platforms and Masterfunds conference in the Hunter Valley last month, in which a number of licensee executives, including AMP Advice managing director Eric Gibson, weighed in on the topic of APL construction.
AMP and Mr Akers, if you tell complete and utter lies long and strong enough you may even believe them yourselves. It’s almost funny if it wasn’t such a problem for the financial advice industry and clients.
IFA you today published a press release from the Charter aligned Announcer Group. Well upon looking at that firms website and reading statements from AMP’s Dave Akers ..I’ll let you make a conclusion whether you think he’s telling the truth…He said..“What this research showed is that as long as you are clear [about ownership ties] from the get-go – which is what our Hillross and Charter advisers will do – then the consumer is happy,” he said. ….. Do you think a consumer could spot the small grey writing within the footer of their website and work out what the relationship is? I don’t think this is being clear from the get go Mr Akers.
[i]What this research showed is that as long as you are clear [about ownership ties] from the get-go – which is what our Hillross and Charter advisers will do – then the consumer is happy,” he said[/i] ….Please google financial advice in any small community and what will appear is several AMP websites rebranded and white labeled. In very very very small writing of the website is a small AMP logo… not really a level playing field is it.. Dear AMP guy I don’t think this is being clear from the get go. ASIC is quite happy to restrict the term independant and we can’t even get this changed. It’s a bit one sided isn’t it.
WOW amazing news – AMP don’t want to disclose clearly with AMP Logo’s that they own and run Hillross & Charter adviser and research shows that over 80% of their recommendations will be for AMP products.
ASIC, when will you force the banks and insurance institutions with multiple “Licensee trick names” to disclose that their advisers are owned and run by the Bank and Insurance company ??
what you talking, people at the asic have to get a job afta they finish their term at the asic, watch where medcraft turns up afta september
I agree in a sense – the disclosure of conflicts of interests in documents that are rarely read or understood by clients is a pointless exercise – moreover, disclosure obscures the real issue – advisers who have an actual conflict of interest should not be permitted to provide advice – there needs to be a separation berween organisations that manufacture financial products and those that provide advice about them.
Gee, what a shock. They have spent billions on creating “fake news” and expensive structures simply so people think they are buying a different product. My Akers would basically be out of a job if they had to have one channel. Hardly surprising that AMP have done their research to support hiding who the owner/controller of the business is. CBA and the like no doubt have the same research. Question remains however, why do you want to hide your brand if it is either so good or of no impact?
The choice can’t be excessively wide that is slows down an adviser to efficiently find a solution to their clients’ problem,” Mr Akers said. “This is an efficiency objective we have when setting an APL.”
slows and adviser! That’s a stretch. and the ‘efficiency objective’ is to sell AMP products im sure.
The man from AMP says “It is pretty clear to me who the client is dealing with”. Ah, I think you’re missing the point. It may be clear to you because you own them, but it’s not at all clear to most clients who they are dealing with. Of course clients will say they’re happy in a survey. They mistakenly believe they are dealing with an independent.
He’s quite right about there being too much disclosure though. Just adding more gumph to the already excessive disclosure documents that nobody but compliance industry workers ever reads, is a just a job creation exercise for compliance industry workers. The best solution for consumers is to require AMP owned dealer groups to be clearly and primarily branded as AMP, and not allowed to hide behind “independent sounding” brands like Hillross or Charter. Same principle should apply to Magnitude & Shadforths & Count & RI Advice and all the other institutionally owned brands.
It is almost like the industry is “pussy footing” around disclosure of ownership. You are either owned (or your Licensee is owned) by product or not. Put it clearly upfront and in writing for clients once and for all (not hiding in an FSG). Playing with terminology like independently-owned and non-aligned instead of upfront disclosure of ownership seems seriously wrong.
I think there are many more grey areas than this. You may have a white label (infocus) you may have directors at both businesses but the businesses are separate (Synchron), you may have a parent company owning both (CBA with FWL and CFS etc), or an SMSF solution provider alignment or an IMA solution