In a statement, Ray McHale, founder of MyNextAdvice – a platform allowing advisers to collect client feedback – said reports of an exodus of advisers may have a silver lining.
“We’re hearing a lot about the impact some of the recent changes are going to have on planners, and that a large segment of the industry is considering leaving,” Mr McHale said.
“I think a changing of the guard is positive, particularly given younger planners are more willing to embrace technology, are generally more open to change and are focused on growing their client base. Their mindset is more suited to an increasingly fast-paced world.”
The comments come as Mr McHale has absorbed his Valuiza business into the MyNextAdvice business, rebranding under the latter banner.
The reorganisation of the businesses came as a response to the changes fintech services are driving within the industry, according to a statement from the firm.
“We can all agree that the Australian financial planning industry is going through a big shake-up,” the statement said.
“MyNextAdvice is embracing this change. In the last six months they have rebranded, brought on a new co-founder – Simone Poulter – and relaunched a new website, substantially modified their apps.”
The Valuiza app has also undergone a number of changes as part of the rebrand, with modifications made to its login process, pricing plans and survey invitation structure, Ms Poulter confirmed to ifa.
The company has also relocated to Fishburners in Sydney as part of the reorganisation.
Young planners will need a Bachelors Degree in Financial Planning. What makes him think there will be new planners coming into the industry. We just ruled out Commerce Graduates, Finance Graduates, Economics Graduates, Business Graduates.
You would have to have rocks in your head to want to start a new career in this industry. Forget it.the lunatics have destroyed it. Better opportunities in nearly every other career available.
This is the huge factor going forward, personally I would be exceptionally disappointed if either of my children did a specific Financial Planning degree as it doesn’t provide any career flexibility.
Hi everyone. I appreciate the passionate responses however think my view has been taken out of context by some readers. Firstly, I definitely don’t believe that the quality of service is related to someone’s age. I also don’t believe that age is a barrier to using technology – I’m in my early 60s and have just launched a Fintech business! Our approach is that we help advisers and practices who are focused on growth. My assumption – rightly or wrongly – is that a majority of practitioners who are faced with tightening regulation and mandated professionalisation and are nearing the end of their career – are unlikely to invest more time or money into new Fintech products. I also think it’s unlikely their focus on growth will compare to someone who is building up their client list/practice. If you take a look at what our business does, it will be clear that it’s [b]all[/b] about the clients. We capture client feedback and turn that into strategies for how to grow your client list or practice. And that improves the client experience. It’s a virtuous cycle. My users are positive about the future of the industry because their clients are telling them how they can improve, which can only be a positive move.
So Ray McHale believes that the problems in the industry are to do with people not having the right mind set for technology, change and their ability to manage change. What a clown. People who make comments that is are the problem.
The market mechanism is not perfect but across time good advisers flourish and the poor ones don’t. This leads the poor ones to end up setting their sights on moving in to Professional Associations or into Compliance positions.
I have finally bitten the bullet – and this is my view .Forgive me for the length of commentary on all related matters (including Robo/FinTech).
I am a CFP Practitioner, and have been a member of the FPA since 1998.
In relation to FASEA, I have deep concerns in relation to the proposed FASEA Education Standards and what they may mean to me, in terms of recognition of both my current qualifications as well as my Experience, which is well documented by the FPA, through my membership.
Having successfully served my clients as a CFP Practitioner for over 20 years, these new Education Standards (FASEA/AQF) make an absolute mockery of my previous education and Training, and whilst the FPA have tried to reassure me over the past 12-18 months that a 100 point plan would most likely qualify me to meet these new proposed FASEA standards, I am totally dismayed by what I am now reading and hearing in regard to FASEA/FPEC.
I also do acknowledge that industry consultation and feedback is being gathered until June 29th of this year, but I wish to make it patently clear to the FPA, that unless I am going to be recognised as meeting FASEA relevant standards as I currently stand, it is very likely that I will cease membership of the FPA, as my CFP status (which has been so highly promoted and touted by the FPA and our industry over many years) will be completely useless. Further to that, I will exit the industry before the 2024 deadline, as I have been overwhelmed in recent years by the continuing draconian and unreasonable demands being placed on me as a Certified Financial Planner. (TASA/LIF/FASEA).
I am TPD registered, and since 1st January have incorporated the new LIF framework into advice provided.
Here too, FASEA appears to have been hijacked by parties with their own vested interests (Politicians/Education Providers/ATO/FPEC/FASEA/ASIC), and certainly not in the best interests of the Financial Planning community (Advisers in particular). This smacks of significant hypocracy and exhibits a major” Conflict of Interest” as far as I am concerned, and it is high time that the FPA, as my Representative body, and to whom I have paid significant annual Membership Fees to for over 20 years, takes a very strong stand on FASEA – NOW.
Whilst I acknowledge the need to maintain Educational/Professional/Ethical standards in our industry, there seems to be a very distinct lack of both common sense and objectivity being exhibited by the major players who seem to be dictating the Agenda on FASEA.
Where is the acknowledgement of over 20 years experience as a successful CFP practitioner, with the ongoing obligations of having to completer the annual CPD 40 points/hours through licencees and external providers.
I am sure that Judges sitting in the High Court in Canberra , with over 20-30 years experience dispensing their craft successfully, can’t all of a sudden be told that their previous academic qualifications and experience count for nothing, and that they now need to go back and study their LLB or other similar qualifications all over again.
Forgive me for ,being cynical on these issues, but from what I can see at present, not only do the current set of proposals seem unworkable, but they are also “Morally Highly Objectionable”.
I am sure that I am not alone in my thinking.
It will be interesting to see if Mr McHale has the same view when he needs to be shoved out of the way as part of the old guard.
Is this fellow in the real world – what comments they are an insult to expertienced Risk Advisers
Yes, very good. I especially like Mr McHale’s company’s move to Fishburners in Sydney. Wonderful! Should improve things immensely
What a truly arrogant statement from someone who thinks Robo advice will take over the world. Simply because some of us are older does not mean we are Technology dinosaurs. If you look at the latest research it shows that robo advice will only be a tool to help streamline the advice process as most clients actually want to talk to the adviser as they do not have the skills or knowledge to be able to sort out their financial affairs by themselves.
You should get into bed with FASEA who also seem to think that only those who have completed a degree in the last 5 years are most qualified to be giving advice to clients going forward.
I have been a planner for 30+ years and my knowledge of technology is streets ahead of some of the new planners coming into our profession. It has nothing to do with age as last time I checked your ability to adopt new technologies is not age related.
You need to declare your self-centred self-interest in all of this.
IFA, why do you give space to such vacuous articles.
McHale comments: “I think a changing of the guard is positive, particularly given younger planners are more willing to embrace technology, are generally more open to change and are focused on growing their client base. Their mindset is more suited to an increasingly fast-paced world.”
Interesting that nothing in his comments reflects the well being of the client. Embracing technology and growing your client base contributes nothing to the quality and relevance of the advice required by the client! But only to the wellbeing of the inexperienced adviser. Go get em tiger!
So, what Ray is saying is “get out of the way you old farts, let me have your market share”.
I have to agree. The entire industry needs a major evolution on so many fronts. But this isn’t going to happen until the older generation ( not necessarily just age but mindset ) of advisers bound by excessive remuneration models under which they have been spoilt for decades, grasping to a well meaning but questionable education regime, smoke and mirror value packages and an unwillingness to accept a better educated and more questioning marketplace exit the industry. A lot of what these individuals are protecting is their money under a veil of looking after clients.
This is not to say that the future is just “new entrants”. Some of these new entrants are highly educated, technically and emotionally competent but compromised by the remuneration and fee structures imposed by “traditional” licensees. And of course the greed and self-interest of many product manufacturers.
What a load of @$%%. Even if you were young and tech savy you’d find that the majority of software programs are designed for AMP and the like and it would only a matter of time before you butt your head against the wall. Unfortunately our licensing structure, the dominance of the big banks has caused a stifling of software development in Australia.
There are good and bad advisers across the generations, to argue otherwise would be naive.
What the industry is most likely to loose through all of this change is the smaller, locally focused practices especially in regional areas. This can’t be a good thing for advice seekers. Institutions will mop up all of the client books at fire sale prices and then just turn off the advice fees and hang on to trails. There is no incentive for them to give advice any longer – they value product not advice.
Young advisers whilst (possibly) better qualified are more likely to be salaried and working for an insto (of some shape or form). They will be exceptionally good at fitting an advice process designed to deliver product yet meet regulatory expectations. The old aligned adviser may have hummed the tune of their licensee, but the salaried adviser will be singing and dancing their employers tune!
I don’t think there is any place for such a nasty attitude towards older planners. I am a young adviser and I associate with a lot of other young advisers. Sure we joke sometimes about the older planners being a little backward and old school. But I seriously doubt many of us will be dancing on the graves of older advisers if they are pushed out the door. That sort of large scale disruption will hurt consumers and damage the image of the financial planning profession. Perhaps McHale should get some feedback from his own clients before mouthing off next time.
Nice work Ray – but what about the clients? Gee – this industry is full of very mediocre people.
Johnny come lately
ray-your opinion- no cred-no substance-just a free ad for your business. I’m surprised the article even made it this far.
Self serving comment me thinks Ray
Ray I am 62.y.o. we operate a paperless office and are totally up to date with IT etc, having observed many young/new advisers that have recently joined this industry and I am somewhat concerned with the lack of people skills that they have. I can assure you clients who are in their 40s, 50,s and older do not wish to deal with young whipper snappers as they call them, they very much appreciate a bit of grey hair and maturity. One of their concerns is who is going to look after them us old guys have died or retired !!
It would certainly benefit Ray’s business, but what about the clients??
Hi Anonymous. I’m taking this opportunity to respond on behalf of the business and clarify that MyNextAdvice is all about clients. Practices survey their clients to find out how they improve their service and product delivery. All the insights we generate are based entirely on the feedback the clients provide. Practices can choose to ignore this feedback, or evolve in accordance with it. At the very least it opens up dialogue with clients that may not currently exist in an easy and regular format. I’d be happy to take you through a demo? Simone (MyNextAdvice Co-Founder).
So it’s a recently arrived competitor to well established services like Beddoes and Survey Monkey, trying to gain traction by bad mouthing experienced advisers and cashing in on “fintech” hype. Good luck with that strategy.
You have to say that – no doubt ASIC is monitoring this and oops better look good eh! What a self serving ADD you have place for your dealer group. Guess what? You’ve just made sure no one in their right mind would join you – haha. You do realise the FASEA will ensure that the older advisers don’t leave the industry. Bye bye MyNextAdvice. I guess you will just pop up under another name when you fail but at least you are giving us your names!
I’d suggest choosing your business partners a bit better in the future or put a nozzle on them. Don’t think Ray is doing your business any favours.
Ray McHale may have rocks in his head, methinks. Either that or an agenda, or both. How can he say the current clueless and selfish academic-led malaise the industry finds itself in can have a positive side to it? Experienced advisers are leaving and will continue to leave and the industry will be left with box-tickers, robocops and compliance managers. Claims will be a debacle with no experienced advisers to be advocates for clients. Robo-advice will be ALL. Life companies will rue the days when they decided not to champion a separate licence for risk advisers as there will be no risk advisers to sell their products. I will be watching with interest around 2023 – 2025 when the piper will have to be paid. While I admire anyone who tries to be positive in the face of calamity Ray is only putting lipstick on a dying pig here, at least while the FPA, FASEA et al exist . . . I don’t take any pleasure in writing this as this is was MY industry and I WAS proud of it AND the excellent way I protected and still do protect my clients. I have nothing but contempt for the ‘industry bodies’ and life groups who have destroyed all that was good, both by their actions and inactions. How can Ray possibly glean positivity from our decimated industry?
Ray McHale’s comments are laughable There are very few “young planners” coming through and this will be even less now with the new requirements and who does Ray McHale think is going to employ them or mentor them when most of the “old guard” have left?
With the old and the new guard disappearing who is going to be left to buy or use his platform? You certainly would not be want to be investing in MyNextAdvice or any other technology directed at advisers.
Agreed McHale’s comments are foolish.