Everyone has an opinion, and some people feel compelled to speak out. Share your views, opinions and insights with financial advisers accross Australia today. If you'd like to write a blog or to submit a letter to the editor please contact the editorial team on email@example.com or call 02 9922 3300.
There are countless things that the regulators have imposed on non-bank Advisers over the last several years that do nothing to help the consumer and everything to support the banks, insurance companies and industry funds! When is someone going to start a class action???
I used to think we could differentiate ourselves by our membership to professional associations, such as the CFP logo etc no matter how flawed it was. However we've clearly been let done by these bodies and they are just now full of AMP advisers themselves and we're paying for the direction they've taken. the only thing is to keep being in the trenches everyday delivering good advice and caring for our clients and we'll win the good war. I have to remind myself of that often, as I shred the paperwork to join AMP in order to buy a client registry that I rape and pillage for five years.
Yes you are conflicted; and exceedingly more so than an adviser working for an independently owned firm. We select insurance products for our clients based on independent research software. It covers all of the 11 major life insurance companies plus a range of others including your industry fund friends. I show this research to my clients and I point out all of the junk policies on the list. It is a great discussion point, which leaves a lasting impression on my clients. I highly recommend you seek out this information. You will be surprised at what you see. Don't rely on the BS fed to you by your masters. If you have the courage to seek out this independent research, you will be in a better position to advise your clients and perhaps gain more respect for your peers in the non-aligned space. Best of luck.
"Best interests legislation applies to all financial advisers irrespective of employer"
Then you go on to accuse your non union competitors of selecting the insurers that make them most commission or provides BDM favours? Sounds like the same sort of lies and hypocrisy union fund reps spew out in their "workplace education seminars". If you work for an "industry fund" you are really just a union representative.
Big call. Where are you licensed? Let's throw some stones your way
I am employed by a dealer group owned by an industry superannuation fund. Our APL includes a number of different industry funds (not just the one we are owned by), a number of platform providers, and several external insurers. We rebate all commissions from life insurance services, do not charge asset based fees, and have a full fee-for-service up-front and ongoing advice model which sustains the business. I am paid a salary with no commission or bonus based on sales, and do not have an individual revenue target. I have NO incentive at all to position a particular product and I happily work with external accountants and solicitors to make sure that my clients get top quality solutions.
Based on your argument above, doesn't that make my advice more "unbiased" than that of any "independently owned" licensee that will select the insurer that pays them the most commission? Or the product of the BDM that takes them fishing every other weekend?
Best Interests legislation applies to all financial advisers irrespective of employer. The client's best interest overrules all others, including those of the employer or owner of the superannuation fund.
If it's about being clear about potential biases, motivations, or interests to consumers, maybe "independently owned" dealer groups should start referring to themselves as "self-interested" and be clearer about what influences product decisions.
Same old flawed argument about product based payments being conflicted and fee for service being free of conflict. Completely wrong. All payments are conflicted, including fee for service.
How you manage the conflict is what's important, not the payment method.
Accountants have been providing conflicted, fee for service, "independent", SMSF recommendations for years. Very rarely are those recommendations in the client's best interest.
no one cares for the adviser. the good for nothings, only use of advisers is for regulators and product makers to heap blame on
totally support your view. that is exactly what is required.
you sound like a broken record. everyone knows this, how long do we keep on saying this. there is no one representing advisers so this is what you get.
he who writes legislation wins. if you have deep pockets you get good results. we have no meaningful representation so what do you expect. it's going to get harder and harder for us
ASIC have clearly no idea nor clue. I would add to that final line, nor do they care.
Don't see why Anon is getting so much negative feedback - the cost of reliable research is a real factor here. Open APLs introduce risk that has to be managed appropriately. Maybe the cost is not as dramatic as Anon suggests but it is real and not-insignificant.
I cannot believe how left-wing and anti-best interest for the consumer, ASIC have become. They are an absolute disgrace as a regulatory body and clearly have their own agenda at play here – which does not revolve around the best interests of any consumer.
The ASIC Funding Levy is also a disgrace.
Wishful thinking, they just maintain their silence.
They haven't commented on ASIC's mooted Risk SoA what makes you think they will comment on this.
They just happily keep collecting moneys from whatever source and refuse to release details of the current and former CEO's remuneration.
I don't think that's what the article is getting at. If anything, an open APL means it's harder to satisfy the best interests duty because the scope of possible alternative strategies and financial products that the adviser must consider is much wider. More and better research is required to make those decisions.
Honest financial planners???? Don't you read the almost daily headlines of advisers being banned...and lets not forget the "independent" advice given by planners of dealer groups who are owned by banks and product providers....i have no issue with accountants entering the FP space, whilst Malley's intention was right, the model may not have been..yet..
I've always thought that, with respect to product suitability and APLs, people read too much into the difference between a Big 4-branded practice and a Big 4-aligned practice. If these firms are competing in the market for financial advice services (and not the financial products they recommend) then the branding of the practice should be a distinction without a difference as far as the APL goes. In either case, the APL should be broad enough to allow the adviser to meet their best interests duty within the scale of services agreed between adviser and client. I wonder if this plays out in practice?
Hang on - doesn't this actually support the truly independent who have gone the extra yard to meet 923A. Doesn't it differentiate them from all those who haven't. If you want to use the terms then meet 923A - simple as that.
For example, how about the rapidly growing mid-tier sector who have been using the terms to attract new clients despite being themselves vertically integrated and channelling clients into their own products at a great rate of knots. I wonder how well these mid-tiers disclose their in-house conflicts and the influence these conflicts might reasonably be expected to have, or do in fact have on their advice. I'm guessing not very well, because otherwise the ruling on these terms wouldn't be an issue for them.
Other than for the purposes of conflicts, most prospective clients and clients wouldn't give a hoot about your `ownership structure'. From what I've seen, it's about the presence and extent of your product and service conflicts.
Overdue and hopefully this will weed out the pretenders, until they devise another way around the law.