The firm – which is currently acting on behalf of aggrieved former Macquarie Equities clients and is also a member of CBA’s open advice review program – has provided a submission to the Senate’s ‘scrutiny of financial advice’ inquiry arguing a number of additional enhancements to the ’enhanced register of financial advisers’ should be made.
“It should be a requirement that a financial adviser must have a relevant tertiary level degree, 12 -months training and ongoing professional development in what is an ever-changing area,” the submission argues, echoing the recent parliamentary joint committee report on adviser standards.
“Until then, disclosure of the qualifications held by advisers, such as they are, is vital for consumers to understand what expertise they have in providing the financial advice.”
However, as well as qualifications, the submission penned by Maurice Blackburn partner John Berrill suggests the register include details about external dispute resolution mechanisms so consumers are prepared.
Specifically he writes that a “confirmation that [the adviser] hold[s] adequate professional indemnity insurance” be included in the register, as well as “any disciplinary orders or undertakings” from ASIC or “any FOD complaints” upheld against them.
In addition, the submission suggests that advisers be “required to demonstrate that they consider and recommend both affiliated and non-affiliated products”, even suggesting that parliament should consider mandating that APLs contain a majority of non-affiliated products for aligned advisers.
“This ties in with the general best interest test and would provide prescriptive requirements to support compliance with the best interest test,” the submission states.
My last few lines that seem to have offended you were directed to blogger Seriously – not you. What do you mean when you say the FPA’s DipFP “was the only one”? Perhaps you missed the MCom (Fin Plan). What has been most surprising is the rawness of nerves out there when the abysmally low level of education of “too many” financial planners is first mentioned. There I was thinking that that was an uncontroversial point that would pass without bother.
Edward,
You would have completed basic financial planning units and the Diploma of Financial Planning through the FPA via Deakin University was that only one.
You obviously have a chip on your shoulder. I’m actually not bad in most areas. I have been practising for 33 years and no, I am not an accountant but I have great understanding of taxation and its laws. Yes I have an authority to discuss taxation with my clients. As for your last few lines, what are you alluding to? This is turning into a slanging match rather than a forum. A little too aggressive.
Edward how many years have you practised as a financial planner?
ABCFP and Seriously, I’ve searched and am unable to find any remark of mine that insults financial planners in general. I merely expressed despair at the level of training inherent in many of today’s Diplomas. I remember the one to which you probably refer 20 years ago ABCFP. When I did it (a doddle) I was (and still am) an accountant and tax agent – MCom (Fin Plan) CTA CFP. Relevant degrees and real diplomas (e.g. SIA Diploma in Applied Finance & Investment) existed at that time. I’m not sure in what areas you practice Seriously, but if its tax considerations limit you to the deductibility of income protection premiums, good luck to you. Were you interested, you might look at the case law that authorises it.
How’s your 25% plus cost fees going their boys. Too busy in Aspen right now to respond I guess but you fee sucking, 6 minute bill cycle Cowboys called lawyers should be ashamed of your whole industry. An industry that ruins lives every day.
Edward, I suggest you do not insult financial planners who have taken the time to complete the relevant qualifications to achieve CFP status.
The only tertiary qualification 20 years ago was a diploma of financial planning and it certainly was not a give away. I respect those who have completed law and others who have completed other difficult disciplines. To day there are institutions that offer Masters of Financial Planning which I am attempting to complete whilst operating a busy practice.
Legal practices such as Maurice and Blackburn thrive on people’s misfortunes and one can only read into the publication that there is an indication of self promotion and self interest.
Professional financial planners are more knowledgable than you give credit to. Why then would we engage lawyers and accountants as clients? They are clients because we make a difference to their lives.
Edward, what is ridiculous is to have to have a registration with the TPB just so one can say that your Income Protection is or is not a tax deductible premium! Compliance gone mad because of the likes of Maurice Blackburn.
Low level quals for FP is being addressed, and it should.
I didn’t suggest that it was complicated Old Risky. Lawyers can discover that, if necessary, in little more than an instant. What concerns me is the ultra low level of ‘qualifications’ held by too many so-called Financial Planners. I don’t remember when the term ‘Diploma’ became debased but I do remember Ella Bache awarding one in the 80s for face painting…. and on it goes – just look at the ‘qualifications’ necessary to become a tax (financial) adviser.
Edward – its pretty simple. Lawyers have a list of which PI insurers are likely to settle early and for how much. Once they know the PI insurer for the licencee, they have a strategy for a quick win, taking advantage of licencees with large PI excesses and insurers with a “commercial ” attitude, particularly if the adviser is paying the excess.
The ad hominem attacks below suggest that the writers have no sensible argument to put. Just what is wrong with the reported remarks above?
AND a register of lawyers who advertise “no win no fee” ….and a definition of this as we are aware that if there is any avenue of appeal it MUST be taken or the fee is charged. This fee amounts to hundreds of thousands and peoples lives are ruined in pursuit of cases encouraged where there is NO prospect of a win. I am aware of one case like this where client encouraged to pursue workcover on a hereditary condition with NO prospects of a win. Life on hold for 4 YEARS…and still going, this is a disgrace, and misleading and deceptive conduct in the first degree. NO SOA or explanation of how the NWNF works. People in glass houses should not throw stones.
And similar rules for ambulance chasing “lawyers” including an SOA re possible client outcomes after their fees are deducted ????
and the same discipline for ambulance chasing lawyers including exactly what is meant by “no fee” ???
A legal firm operating from a glass house wishing for a soft target to improve its bottom line