In an email to various Australian stakeholders yesterday, Mr Bachrach said he welcomes the report, arguing implementation of its recommendations would take Australian advice to a higher level.
“The only conclusion a rational person can come to is to stay far ahead of the inevitable by delivering a comprehensive and powerful client experience, based on the client’s goals and values, and charge for that experience in a way that is completely disconnected from investments or any other product,” Mr Bachrach said.
“Don’t let government regulators determine your destiny! Instead, skip the FUM-based fee (including the game of setting a fixed annual fee based on a percentage of FUM) and insurance commissions, level or otherwise, altogether.
“Life can be so simple for you and your clients. Make it so.”
I have read the above article over and over and as hard as I try, I cannot fault it…
How does such an article inflame so much negativity from all those so quick to bag this guy?
I agree with everything he says, but if it was someone else saying the opposite, I’d disagree, but I have far too much professionalism and integrity to respond with such comments like some of you have, clearly emotively rather than rationally.
Blame his vested interests, etc, but you know what, I have no vested interests here, no public profile, do no media, coaching, etc, but I run my business as per Bill’s philosophies and I know that my clients are happier, my retention rate is higher, as is my advocacy scores and my profit margin is greater than most other businesses in our industry…
So, maybe a few more small business owners running a ‘one (or two) man band’ should not be so quick to dismiss such wisdom.
P.S. Well said Bento!
Matthew thought IFA was just for him? His upset and sooking make a little more sense now.
It’s been fun boys, but that’ll do me.
You’ll notice that I don’t troll around the Risk Adviser website picking fights. Wonder why you guys bother trolling around here.
Anyway, I know Craig will want the last word, so over to you…
Imagine having your future income and business value decided by a bunch of bureaucrats, bankers, life companies, regulators, and politicians. Why not let the clients decide your future?
Imagine having to spend your time lobbying, moaning, whining and complaining upstairs, and compromising, to such a degree that no one is happy.
And why is it’s everyone’s fault that the industry is in bad shape when you guys are at the bloody centre of it and have been for years? And “how dare they this”, and “how dare they take away my lollies”.blah blah blah
Are you guys even capitalists??
Clients pay you if you’re helpful and add value to their lives. Big business and government will always give with one hand and take with the other. That’s their job and they get big bonuses, power and privelege to do it. Duh!
I’m a risk writer. A proud one. And I don’t write anything with a commission in it, because I can’t stand conflicted advice. It means the client knows that I’m only recommending something because it’s in their best interests. It means that I’ll recommend they reduce the cover at the right time because it’s in their best interests. It means I won’t allow blind indexation of something that quite often decreases in need. It means that options outside of commission paying products are considered as well as “writing risk”. It means that their premiums are cheaper than those that they can obtain from even the most honorable, fine, upstanding advisers in the commission taking community. It’s so bloody obvious that it hurts when I think about the stupidity of commissions.
I am feeling quite gifted Mathew, thanks Mathew. Precious? that’s my wife. Id am struggling with the glaring reality of you persisting to misread and misrepresent. The picture is forming. But if you carry on distorting and regurgitating mis-truths then you have failed to heed Craig s sarcasm of encouragement. My I suggest you refrain from assumptions and re read what you have commented on. You inferred. How did you conclude a comment as necessary “if you are a risk writer”? Its best to correctly interpret before comment.
OMG!! Is the article in question not printed above or is it a mirage. It’s is the article printed in IFA that is being commented on. Matthew show some self awareness. What is with the bullying of others that don’t subscribe to your view!!!. It was you that took a disliking to comment by others as if it was a personal attack on you. Just because you have a public man crush on bill doesn’t mean we all share the same sycophantic view. Make an informed and objective statement and surprise us all.
Keep going Matthew….keep going!
I didn’t write ‘just’ a risk writer in a disrespectful way Ken, so don’t be too precious.
I have no issue with Risk Advisers taking commissions. I have issues with financial advisers that charge their clients an ongoing partnership fee also taking commission.
So certain arrows aren’t fired at you Ken, if you are a Risk Adviser.
But again, you’re on a financial advice forum, not a Risk Only forum. Just don’t get it…why here? maybe you guys are bored and looking to pick fights…
continued again etc
I feel relevant to contribute to these pages. I prefer professionalism demonstrated in the industry and when you climb the ladder of success, just make sure its against the right wall. But please help others up as you go rather than standing on their shoulder to elevate you. Thats an unworthy position.
They can also belong to risk groups for learning. This may include riskadviser.com.au? You applauding their efforts would be a little more professional and seeking to be as good as many of them may be a goal. Let me state, I often find it clearly practical and more manageable to achieve planning in stages rather than a holistic complete plan in one delivery that a client may get confused in or find totally overwhelming. So please understand, many risk professionals/writers are also investment professionals and deliver a terrific service. Whats Independant mean? I’m AMPFP. Does this mean i write AMP products?No. How could someone not call me independant? Am I vertically aligned? yes. Am I independent? Yes. For I chose where I place my business. Not any other person, for I am the adviser and my clients needs are to be met even prior to BID. Now thats independant.
continued
Yes I write much risk only plans scoped by the client. But I will not write investment only when clearly there are risk issues to address. Its called ethics and becomes before all else. its about conversations in later years. Good investment returns are derived much from good market returns and risk assessment by the advisor for tolerance. To a client, its expected. To a disabled, ill, deceased client. Its life changing and I trust you will always have the right answer then. So, dont belittle a risk writer which you clearly have. Many risk writers write holistic plans and investment plans also.
Having difficulty with your views Mathew. Cant say I agree with some of your media engagements over recent years either.
With that view I will not follow the advice to obtain your prior approval here either. I see that you make great aspersions in what is independant advice. Just a risk writer? Maybe one of the most important aspects of financial planning and; I trust I don’t take the wind out of your sails. This is the time to actually refuse a potential client if they fail to accept quality advice on the first cornerstone possibly being protection.
Everyone!!! There is an announcement…Matthew will determine relevancy and your credentials to comment, and while he is the ultimate voice on all things financial planning he has taken over the editorial role at IFA in his spare time which he appears to have plenty of. As if we need your agreement to comment, get over yourself and go and find some clients to bore.
Bill WHO ??????????????
Get your facts right before commenting.
Please keeping going Matthew…… you are very clearly defining yourself better than anyone could possibly imagine.
Go for it Tony, you have right to request but make sure it’s relevant. If you’re a risk writer who is telling a financial planning website to change it’s content, it’s like turning up to a Megadeath concert and requesting they sing Spice Girls songs.
Craig, are you requesting Spice girl songs here?
Your comment below of Bill who is a disgrace on these pages. Bill Bachrach has done more than anyone else in the past two decades to turn financial planning into a profession. His values based financial planning approach that thousands of financial planners are embracing puts him in the Hall of Fame in my books. For financial planners, not risk writers.
Your sooking, disrespect and bullying on these pages does nothing for your reputation.
Instead of discussing things in a mature way, when someone says something you don’t like you cry a river of tears. Grow up.
I don’t believe I need to waste too much time responding to your comments Matthew, other than stating the obvious in that you have redefined ‘arrogant’ by your display of well……
complete arrogance!
Oh and by the way, just to set you straight, I have as much right as anyone else to respond to any issues or content that I believe may have either a positive or negative impact on financial services.
I will ensure I contact you first next time to ask if it is ok for me to respond and how it should be expressed!…….yeah right.
Again your representation of the “True Independents” has done wonders for their reputation and acceptance by portraying a perception of a minority movement pretending to be elitist and exclusive.
Oh I get it!! We can’t have an opinion on spruiker Bill unless we submit our creditials first. What an extrodinary exchange below….. Surely we have the ability to request a little bit of editorial integrity and request a little more than the reprint of obvious uninformed dribble for some challenged followers.
The reason for my question Craig is to assess how much right you have to be demanding what the content is on ifa.com.au which is for independent financial advisers, those that provide holistic advice as opposed to limiting the advice to say, just insurance (risk).
As a write this I see an advert to the right for Risk Adviser (http://www.riskadviser.com.au); if this article appeared there, then your comment would make more sense. But not here.
Independent financial advisers have more right to ask the Staff Reporter what should and shouldn’t be featured; having said that, even I’m not arrogant enough or naive enough to make such demands.
Matthew, firstly I find it intriguing as to why you would ask such a question and secondly query why the diversity of advice provided within my business has any relevance to my opinion on Bill Bachrach’s commentary.
I think a much more important question to be asking would be to have Bill Bachrach confirm in writing that he has in fact read the 96 page Trowbridge report in full including the Life Insurance Code of Conduct and the Appendices and secondly, who paid his fee to be appearing in Australia in order to assess whether or not there may be a conflict of interest in the opinion he provides.
Staff Reporter – happy to hear comments from Bill any time, so please continue to publish these articles, they are of interest to independent financial advisers.
Craig, are you a “Risk only” adviser?
tell him/them, they’re dreaming….
Sure, life would be simple Bill…if we could get rid of 50 page SOAs and other other regulatory nonsense for a simple life cover recommendation. More than happy to charge consultation fees if ASIC and the lawyers can pull back on their requirements. You can’t expect us to take a massive hair cut in revenue but the workload stays the same or gets worse even.
Sound comments already made below. Rogues will be rogues. Removing fair remuneration to a level under cost to serve is hardly a ground breaking success to lead into higher quality advise?
Having clients pay a fee on top of the premium is the stuff of fairies. Sure there maybe a few who do it successfully, but I also see many who can successfully articulate rubbish and there value proposition a little too well. Respectfully Bill, Take a pay cut
Sound comments already made. Rouges will be rogues. removing fair remuneration to a level under cost to serve is hardly a ground breaking manner to change advise? unless the intent is to remove it?
having clients pay a fee on top of the premium is the stuff of fairies. Sure there maybe a few who do it successfully, but I also see many who can successfully articulate BS and there value proposition a little too well. Respectfully Bill, Take a pay cut
Bill Who ? Who cares.
Why have we got an international self promotional speaker not only giving an opinion but why is he getting any media air?
Bill sends an email to stakeholders (gee, I didn’t get one from Bill !)and said he welcomes the Trowbridge report….something which will not have any impact on Bill’s livelihood and financial survival at all.
Bill may well be brilliant at what Bill does and that is great….but please IFA Staff Reporter, don’t give any more space to this obvious form of self promotional ego trip.
What report was he reading? While he talks of non conflicted advice his appearance in any media is, by its very inclusion conflicted. He is a spruiker who gets paid to appear and speak. Like what he says or not he is a beneficiary of our existence and by definition he is parasitic in nature.
Would be good for the over opinionated and very self interested & self promotional overseas program floggers to not be given so much media time as if their opinion matters one iota…