As the profession awaits the minister’s final verdict on the new class of adviser, Australian Retirement Trust’s (ART) head of advice, Anne Fuchs, said this initiative would significantly enhance access to “really simple” advice, describing it as “another great way” to improve consumer accessibility.
Speaking on an episode of Momentum Media’s Relative Return podcast, Fuchs explained that while Australia’s second largest super fund recognises the potential benefits of a new class of adviser, it believes “strongly” that any implementation needs to prioritise consumer safety.
At ART, the fund already has a digital advice tool for its “QSuper members” via its super app, which it is actively working on “extending” across its entire member base.
This tool complements a robust support network, which includes 70 phone-based advisers, 25 education specialists, and dedicated business development managers that work with advisers. Additionally, guidance specialists are available to provide “high-quality general advice” on “higher order” questions.
Fuchs emphasised that a new class of adviser would essentially guide members through that digital advice journey.
“A large percentage of our members have really low levels of financial literacy and digital literacy, particularly our older members. So having somebody over the phone who was able to talk through a digital advice experience to a member and explain all of these concepts about what transition to retirement is and what risk means would be marvellous,” she said.
Fuchs highlighted that even if the new class of adviser doesn’t materialise, ART is proactively developing the next generation of financial advisers through its graduate program in collaboration with Griffith University.
“We have intakes of graduates coming in from Griffith University, young professionals who’ve done their bachelor of commerce and they’ve done their major in financial planning. Griffith University is my old university in Queensland, and so they come in and they do their professional year with us and then become fully financial advisers and we see a big role that superannuation can play.
“Let’s just say if the new class of adviser didn’t happen, we can still recruit a lot, the next generation of new advisers in through a graduate program like we already have today and create the next generation of advice professionals. But of course, we would love the new class of adviser.”
Fuchs first announced the fund’s plans for a digital tool back in March last year. At the time, she said the tool would be an “end-to-end digital advice platform” – encompassing calculators, DIY advice and human-led intra-fund advice.
“That [the platform] we believe needs to be able to create a member experience, which is why it’s going to be a single platform,” Fuchs said.
“So, if it gets too hard and you [the member] are doing a DIY experience, you can put your hand up and say, ‘Can I have an adviser now’ and they screen share and talk to you.”
At the time, Fuchs said the platform should kick-off at the end of 2024.
The following is a topic that is never raised and/or considered in relation to the new ‘Qualified Adviser’ so called ‘opportunity’ which will be before the industry post DBFO tranche 2 implementation (assuming its implementation). That topic is, how will existing Financial Advisers working at superannuation funds across Australia, like ART feel, when they are eventually advised by their employers, that they are no longer required to be registered on the ASIC FAR as a fully fledged Financial Adviser after completing further education, passing the Financial Adviser exam etc?
Conceptually, the proposed new ‘Qualified Adviser’ class of ‘Adviser’ who can provide general advice and simple personal advice on behalf of superannuation funds, banks, insurers etc. will have lower education requirements/expectations, not need to sit the Financial Adviser exam and to my knowledge, not need to be registered on the ASIC FAR either. These new ‘Qualified Advisers’ will be treated similarly to general advice only representatives working for such organisations today. This will provide organisations like superannuation funds who provide simple personal advice to consumers with an opportunity to remove a significant cost from their business (e.g. the ASIC Financial Adviser Levy Fee) by transitioning current Financial Advisers to being ‘Qualified Advisers’. I am not sure existing fully qualified Financial Advisers working for such funds will be keen to be transitioned to the new ‘Qualified Adviser’ status. There could be a mass exodus of Financial Advisers from such organisations once tranche 2 is implemented. Who knows there could be a strategic play by organisations to replace their existing Financial Advisers with new ‘Qualified Advisers’ who come with lower qualifications, experience and salary expectations. Interesting times ahead.
It should be very simple. Registered financial advisers who have met their educational and experience requirements are more than capable of servicing the vast majority of super members, most of whom have simple advice needs. Remove the redtape and the advice can be provided very affordably and can be deducted from super.
Its blatantly obvious that the excessive redtape has been imposed on financial advisers with the distinct aim of enriching super funds and certain digital advice providers who now can provide cheap as chip digital advice to potentially millions advisers, thus further decimating adviser numbers.
Disturbingly, one of the founding investors of one of the most prominent digital advice providers happens to be a former member of parliament who was responsible for implementing the redtape that has had disastrous outcomes for our industry. He and his cronies now stand to reap millions of dollars while thousands of hardworking, decent financial advisers have had to exit the industry. Wake up Australia, how is it anything but corrupt for a former MP to act in this way?
Anne Fuchs should know better than this type of rubbish.
She cut her own career out of being supportive and involved with the AFA for a number of years.
She well knows how the history of decimation has occurred and instead of comments like this would be better served in standing up for the IFA’s & this fight against the obliteration of any common sense in this whole legislative overreach.
The government is not adequately engaging with the financial planning industry, as demonstrated by policies recently advocated by Stephen Jones. These policies seem to prioritize the interests of product providers, such as superannuation funds and insurance companies—the very entities implicated in the Royal Commission—while disregarding the impact on professional advisers.
For example, the push to dilute education standards to facilitate the delivery of advice at scale is highly concerning. As someone who has invested significant time, money, and effort to meet the stringent requirements, this feels like a betrayal.
If other individuals, including product providers, wish to offer financial advice, they must be held to the same rigorous standards. Allowing them to sell products under the guise of advice, without meeting these requirements, undermines the value of genuine financial planning. It’s akin to the government seeking advice from pharmaceutical companies that want to sell drugs at “scale” without consulting doctors—and then exempting these companies from the same education standards required of medical professionals, under the vague pretext of delivering “simple advice” without defining what “simple” actually means.
This path inevitably leads to poor advice being given, with the government likely attributing it to “unintended consequences” down the line. True advice must be held to a high standard, regardless of who provides it. Anything less risks eroding trust and damaging the integrity of the industry.
There does seem to be a new “class war”? New “class” of Adviser – with special rules? What is happening in Australia? It would be hard to imagine this happening in the Medical Profession?
‘new class of adviser with a strong consumer safety focus’. Lol. Not like we existing advisers with strong ‘consumer risky investment focus’. See me for advice such as ‘keep your cash under the mattress’ or at worst ‘in the bank’.
Really only 4 comments IFA?? Stop moderating for big super they are kidding themselves and everyone that entering financial advice is going to end in good outcomes for consumers.
Two “classes” of Adviser. Is Australia becoming stranger by the day?
“Additionally, guidance specialists are available to provide “high-quality general advice” on “higher order” questions.”
How this is achieved without the requirement of an SOA is one I’d like to see examined!
re: “Can I have an adviser, now”
adviser: “Can commonsense prevail?”
observer: “Yeah, nah… advisers will keep getting punished for historical rorts by those who have long gone”
None of whom have to contend with the Annual Fee Renewal Consent Forms, red tape that doesn’t exist in any other nation on earth. Time to stop the lawfare against non-aligned retail advisers.
I’m so sick of this rubbish.
Totally unnecessary if the red tape (which helps no-one) is removed.
Where is the QAR red tape relief ? Where is it !!!!
Seems the Red Tape is specifically designed to apply to a certain “class” of Advice providers – and not the “new class”?