Connect and engage

Probably the same way Alan Kirkland, ex CHOICE CEO, was appointed an ASIC Commissioner. In both cases, are They telling us they were the best candidates?

Start off in a psychiatric ward... you'll find us hiding there.

That equation is long gone given the current red tape regulations coupled with the LIF decreased brokerage rates and increased claw backs means it has not been commercially viable for most planners to write risk for quite some years now…
That is a real shame but the people who make the rules (who acted upon those with agendas like insurers and consumer groups like choice) both don’t know but sadly also don’t care.

Make it an environment people want to work in as opposed to a dying profession choked with red tape over regulation and eitchunting which led to the suicide of multiple small business owners. Stop pandering to industry funds who only want advice to be a sales tool with the lowest overhead possible, there's a start!

Change the CSLR by making it transparent and stop ripping advisers off ala the Dixon fiasco might be a good start…

Teach the young folk to hunt and sell risk. The true hunter is never unemployed. The rest you can find in the telephone book. 

The answer doesn't cost a million dollars, it is obvious and all advisers have been screaming it for a decade.  Remove the ridiculous levels of regulation and stop the continual persecution of the advice profession.  Once there is respect for the important role financial advisers play then new entrants will come.  The concept isn't hard, what is hard is removing the inbuilt hatred of the advice profession by the likes of ASIC, APRA, Choice, Union Funds, ALP etc.  Why would anyone join the advice profession when so many parties put a target on your back to push their own ideology.     

I don’t think theirs a shortage of talented young people willing to work in financial planning. The issue is there’s a lack of financial planning businesses willing to take on the expense, risk and investment of time in young talent and providing jobs. The regulatory environment is the main cause of this due to staff retention risk followed by the lack of visionary practice principals taking a longer term view.

The fact that you don't understand that insurance commissions increase the cost of the policy by over 30% is incredibly concerning.

Well said.

What could possibly go wrong?

Not conspiracy theories when facts are plain to see! If conflict of interests did create this outcome then yes the CSLR could totally be revisited. This comment and the attitude is why the industry is where it is right now, if you believe you have done the right thing as an Adviser then you have to make a stand. Do you think lawyers would cop what we've had to put up with? Not on your life....

"The biggest concern for me is, are we ever going to have enough advisers to service the country?"

If you are so concerned Danielle, maybe re-visit grade 6 mathematics.

15,000 advisers x 3 appointments per day x 4 days per week x 40 weeks per year = 7.2 million appointments per year.

As at June 2024 there were 14,402,500 workers in this country. Some don't need advice, some don't want it, and the majority are couples. I would argue that a ratio of one appointment per year, for every 2 workers is entirely adequate, in fact quite a lot more than needed.

The only reason we can't handle a perfectly reasonable 3 appointments per day, is because we are tied up with excessive red-tape that no other profession has to put up with. Most of the red-tape excesses were forced on us by ASIC, or legislated in large part thanks to ASIC's shamefully biased and mis-sold REP413, their lobbying of politicians, interference with FASEA etc. all during Danielle tenure at ASIC.

I'm not saying all of our problems (or even any of them) are directly attributable to Danielle's behaviour at ASIC. But she was a senior leader in that organisation and they have a lot to answer for. So it is a bit rich to now come out with such nonsense comments. I'm guessing there will be a flood of former ASIC and Treasury bureaucrats popping up to line their pockets as senior managers at industry funds leading their (un)qualified adviser sales reps. What a stitch up.

Perhaps ASIC has a serious cultural problems within?

Here a novel idea why don’t they employ Mr Beaven as I see he is looking for work 

Let’s face it he couldn’t do a worse job 

Treasury officials as investors and victims of Dixon's and Nerida Cole appointed to oversee financial adviser regulation and standards???????.............This simply doesn't stack up.
There must have been a connection within Treasury regarding this bizarre appointment.
It is untenable this person is in this role.

Very disappointing that NetWealth is broadcasting the views of the totally discredited Danielle Press. She played a major role in persecuting professional licensed advisers, and pushing consumers towards scams and dodgy products. The only thing anyone wants to hear from her is an apology for the damage she caused, and an undertaking to pay every last cent she was paid by ASIC to the victims of unlicensed advice.

Anyone employed by Dixon should not be in treasury let alone a senior leader. Anyone responsible for westpacs fees for no service should not be employed by ASIC and make defamatory statements about unaligned advisers they have no exposure too. Let alone a senior executive. Disgusting 

"The industry now looks like it did 30 years ago, actually, where there were a whole lot of independent financial advisers"
Is she deliberately baiting us with this remark, or has she actually forgotten that ASIC banned the vast majority of us from using the phrase 'independent financial adviser' during her tenure. 

They likely went to another vertically integrated product provider - affordable advice right?