BFP president Dacian Moses told ifa that while many of his members are concerned that ASIC’s s923A clarification will make it difficult for them to differentiate themselves from the institutionally-aligned sector, they have decided to accept ASIC’s position.
“The BFP wishes to express public support for the FPA and their position on ASIC’s latest clarification of s923A and the test for independence,” Mr Moses said.
“We can see no value in an attempt to repeal aspects of this clarification and no benefit in quibbling with the regulator on the position they have taken. The public interest is best served by clarity and that has now been provided with respect to the use of restricted words on which our regulator places great importance.”
Mr Moses said the FPA’s “consideration of the public interest” sets it apart from other associations in the financial advice market. Membership of the FPA is compulsory for BFP members and FPA chair Neil Kendall is a longstanding BFP figure.
The BFP includes practices that meet the definition of independence outlined in s923A of the Corporations Act and others that “never will”, Mr Moses added.
Rather than join efforts to repeal the legislation, which are currently underway, the BFP instead will lobby for greater transparency of ownership for advisers aligned to the institutions.
“Advisers should be required to prominently identify the licensee and the ultimate owner of that licensee on all public documentation,” he said.
The BFP will also push for the inclusion of real estate as a financial product and the introduction of shorter financial advice documents.
The boutique punters, I mean planners club.. interesting… As the President of the West Tinbukto advisers & non aligned planners and advisers group. or WTANAPAAG. I would also like to put out my press release saying basically nothing also. Whilst I’m putting out this press release, I’d like to advise and draw to your attention that we’re currently seeking payments from fund managers to fund my next ski trip, i mean field trip, so if you’re interested please call me…call me now.
Nice work Yogi, i’d like to join WTANAPAAG and attend ski / field trips too. That will make 2 members, about as many as the BFP have 🙂
I tried posting prior, but FPA Chair and longstanding BFP member Neil Kendall also is an adviser and head of Tupicoffs, a fully independent advice business. By backing ASIC through both FPA and BFP, is he not also conflicted himself given the added value it’s giving his own firm?
Agree. Dear ASIC- How could Neil Kendall or any FPA senior staff member advertise that he is independent, claim to swear an oath to independance and also have the hide to place what he has on their website, whilst also having that role in the FPA? If you’re going out courting the Onepaths/Asterons/BT/AMP of the world trying to get hundreds of thousands of dollars via the professional partner program and someone walks into your firm wanting life insurance DO YOU NOT have a conflict of interest ???? Whilst technically he may be able to get away with this. This is more about ethics and double standards. Dear IFA/ Alekcs how much does Neil make as Chairmen? They might think there is no conflict, but this is more about how we are perceived via the public. I suggest IFA jump on these conflicts prior to the Sydney Morning Herald putting it on page 1.
Agree. NK is always willing to throw all other planners under the bus with the sole objective of marketing Tupicoffs as being different from the majority. He can hardly say he is representative of the vast majority of planners. He has dissed aligned planners – after being one himself for many years. Now he is dissing IFAs who are not s923A – all to achieve his desired Unique Value Proposition. At the end of the day it’s all just a way to market the firm.
When you say Tupicoffs is “fully independent”, do you mean that if a potential client who needs insurance walks through their door, they won’t be given the cost effective option of paying for advice via the well established commission mechanism? They will need to pay an additional upfront cash amount on top of their first year premium. And if they can’t afford that, they’ll have to walk back out and try their luck with junk insurance from a union fund or TV advertisement instead.
How exactly is this situation in the client’s best interest?
Well summed up. Seems like just a slight conflict here in more ways then one. Myself I have 10 clients, all CEO’s that work in Queen Street Brisbane earning more than $2.5 million. I only charge them a flat small fee of $40,000 per year. I would like to put it out there that personally any other planners that don’t work like me, charge like me or where the same pants as me are scum bags and clearly unprofessional miserable sods. I’m currently taking calls from media outlets.
Another example of why true independently owned practices should not be ‘lending’ their political capital to institutionally aligned organisations to then use it against them…..
Dacian most definitely does not speak on behalf of all BFP members, and this was not polled internally before he went public.
I support the inclusion for real estate to be included as a financial product. I would also love it if real estate agents required the same (or similar) amount of education, licencing, and regulation to practice as required of financial planners.
Agreed, as well as mortgages for property investment. It’s absurd that you can get “advice” from real estate agents and property spruikers about “investment property” and none of that will come with any FOFA protections on financial advice about financial products. Takes a combination of vested interests and political cowardice to not see the double standard.
How do you repeal something that is an opinion rather than a law?
I’d believe you test it in court, thus get a common law ruling.
To quote Dacian, “The public interest is best served by clarity”. Precisely why this must be vigorously opposed. The terms “non-aligned”, “non-institutionally owned”, “independent research” and the like are all pretty clear, if you can actually understand English. ASIC’s applying alternative meanings to suit their (hidden?) agenda, is anything BUT clarity!