In an interview with ifa, Mr Kendall – who will take up the position later this month – said the industry has often been its “own enemy” in the past due to squabbling between the various business models and licensing segments, urging advisers to present a unified front.
“I think we need to understand what is good advice and focus on that and focus on looking after our clients rather than ‘my business model is better than your business model’ discussions that have tended to segregate the industry a bit over time,” Mr Kendall said.
The new chair also said that instead of contributing to mudslinging in “the media”, advisers should go through formal channels if they suspect a fellow adviser is up to no good.
“If we don’t like what someone is doing in the past then we should take it to the appropriate regulator and report it – but that is not a media issue – and if they are doing something different but perfectly acceptable then we should just stay uninvolved with that individual choice,” he said.
At the same time, Mr Kendall said the FPA has been partly successful over recent years in unifying elements of the advice community in its quest to drive professional standards.
“In the last four years we have really seen huge progress for the FPA from being an almost irrelevant organisation to uniting professional planners, being a professional association, working in the consumer’s best interest and that – despite being tougher for financial planners – has united them,” he said, paying tribute to the contribution of previous chair Matthew Rowe.
Mr Kendall also reiterated his recent comments that the FPA is “model agnostic”, maintaining that good advice is about individual behaviour not structural issues.
The comments come as ASIC official Louise Macaulay questions whether efforts to raise professional standards without eliminating structural conflicts of interest may be in vain.
Should the advice industry be represented by just one body? Have your say in our latest straw poll.
Ad…a doctor is hardly any kind of comparison to a financial planner. Financial planning was born or created in the 80’s after decades of tweed jackets flogging products. Wealth creation, financial planning, investing is very very simple for those who have done it the right way, AGAIN a degree is not needed and there is absolutely ZERO comparison to a doctor. Doctors have existed for hundreds of years and OBVIOUSLY NEED A DEGREE. You are not an equal in any way shape or form and no other planner is either. There is AGAIN no comparison. Get real.
Formal channels were of no use to Geoff Morris
Incidentally Mr Kendall, nothing I have heard from the FPA for 25 years would convince me that they recognize and value Risk-Only advisers
The pursuit of an idealistic agenda bordering on religious fervour by the vast minority so-called “true independents” of recent times has made for some interesting reading indeed. There is more than enough room for various models to operate in united harmony as long as one doesn’t continually dictate to all others that their model is the one and only option simply because they believe that to be so.
One such adviser recently vigorously defending his client/trust proposition by slamming any advice remunerated by any other method other than direct fees as dubious, claims on his website that his business is “100% Commission Free Financial Planning”
However, his FSG states:
“If you do not wish to pay a fee for our services we may be willing to work on a commission basis or negotiate some other arrangement with you”..& “We are entitled to receive up to 115% Upfront Commission and up to 33% Ongoing Commission.”
A little confused no doubt!
why is there such objection to people actually having formal qualifications, it just shows a lack of professionalism and laziness to lean in a structured and formal manner, so are you happy for doctor to have experience & no qualifications, no way you what both, why the difference with Financial planning
Pity Neil Kendall, what a job to be dumped into. Maybe he should consult Joan Kirner about being put in charge of something when a group of other people have spent a decade ignoring the opportunities and embracing the wrong options.
FPA focus has been on flogging a course designed for institutions and their satellite offices and not on much else. A bit late to start becoming engaged with people you abandoned a decade ago who have gone to a lot of trouble to find and support an alternative organisation.
p.s. better trained crooks inspired by corrupt business models, supported by institutions, are not going to stop bad behaviour.
To cease segregation starts with ensuring media messages align with what’s on one’s website
I am surprised by how few financial planners are actually independent.
Mr Kendall said while some consumers may not yet understand the importance of the word independent when referring to a Financial Planner, he thought it would become a basic expectation for consumers in the future.
We have recognised that independence in financial planning is so important we have gone the extra mile to ensure we could call ourselves independent, and meet the regulators requirements to use that term. It is fine to be independently minded but much better to actually be independent.
Maybe the “heated exchanges” are required to find a solution Neil.
As I just mentioned in another comment, our rating out of 10 on the trust-o-meter (judged by the public) is a 2-3 right now (anyone care to suggest it’s north of 7?).
To get it to 7-9 out of 10 something big has to change. Sticking with the status quo and making small changes around the edges isn’t going to do much.
We need to agree on what the best strategy to get us to 7-9 and in my view, rigorous debate is required.
In time the market will tell us what the right strategy is.
Individual behaviour is not the only factor influencing ‘Good advice’. What about the influence on each adviser of their KPI’s set by their licensees, licensees cultural influences (sell only products on our approved product lists), licensees financial benefits they offer their ‘authorised representatives’ (AR) such as large loans to purchase cars, property, client databases from retiring or deceased ARs, CPD standards and educational standards, size of the licensee and financial resources the licensee has, licensee compliance processes, procedures, rules and of course Licensee Shareholder expectations. Plus I’m sure there are many more, that would make for interesting research.
Steve
to be fair, the purpose have qualifications is not to say your a superior advserm but to ensure that barrier of entry are there also to deter certain rogue elements and also to provide certainty to consumer that you are qualified to give the advice, Just look at the property spruikers giving tax advice and buying property in SMSF skirt ground the edges. To say it not rocket science and shows that you give the impression you are selling products, not strategy advice, selling product your right, but giving advice in the area of tax, estate planning you need to behighly qualified.
OMG….the FPA has done everything in its power in the last 10 to 15 years to destroy, discredit & pressure anyone who isn’t a CFP to pay for their expensive weak as water courses. Financial Planning is NOT rocket science, it DOES NOT need a degree. To ‘Ad’ – your 100 % wrong! I have a degree & the adfp, both pointless unless I have extensive real world experience, empathy, honesty & a real understanding of managing portfolios, equities and clients financial lives that ONLY experience can deliver. It’s SHOCKING that a degree & a FPA course with no experience is allowed to advise. The FPA has championed the quest to abandon their industry, line their own pockets & stab us in the back unless of course we are CFP’s. A title I proudly will never pay for…ever. Your past antics are a disgrace FPA, lift your game or get out the way. Stop bowing to politicians and stand up for this industry & it’s advisers for once.
Great cant wait for the FPA to support the whole industry, not just people with a CFP designation.
Heino, what is this the soviet politburo? voicing differences in the press is both more effective and more democratic way to get things changed. we can never unite when the major advice associations derive their revenue from the product providers and insto dealers. there is no financial advice profession – just a wide range of professionals (independents and bank salesmen) who latch onto that term
To stop the segregation you need to raise the bar, either your qualified at degree level and post grad studies or get out, its that simple
The profession with such low barriers of entry, sick of people banging on about experience out weighs qualification you need both. A Dip fin serv (which is a Joke) and next day you an adviser, you need to have to at least 3 years supervised and completed post grads, if you a serious about it being a professional stop complaining do the qualifications and with the experience you are half way there, then maintain the CPD to keep to date. the associations & regulators need to gets some balls and raise the bar as other professions have done. Stop the school boy antics
If the accounting bodies can get together and prepare joint submissions the advice bodies should also. This keeps the debates and differences behind closed doors and not in the press
I agree. Let’s also hope the FPA can take the lead on this. No more ads which imply that non-FPA members are dodgy.
The industry needs a united voice if it is to be taken seriously. If the accounting bodies can unite with joint submissions then surely so can the advice bodies
The question I would ask Neil is why isn’t the FPA working hand in hand with the FSC and AFA re the life report from ASIC ? Where you asked? Did you reject the offer? If so talking unity seems incongruent.