The Industry Super Network (ISN) and the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees (AIST) have responded in a joint submission to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission’s (ASIC’s) Consultation Paper 212 Licensing: Training of financial product advisers—Update to RG 146.
In the submission, the lobby groups supported the requirement of a bachelor’s degree for providers of personal advice, but rejected the same requirement for general advice providers.
“We believe that the current minimum requirements for general advice providers are sufficient and have seen no evidence that higher levels of qualification are necessary,” said the submission.
The ISN and the AIST argues that any increase in the minimum requirements for general advice staff would “be likely to impact on the capacity of super funds and other providers to continue to offer general advice”.
“AIST and ISN broadly support the need for advisers to undertake increased training as part of generic knowledge requirements, however, we consider that requirements for advisers providing general advice are smaller and should be removed from this list,” the submission stated.
“We would propose that ASIC devises minimum requirements which distinguish between general and personal advice providers.”
There are laws and regs that ALL planners must know and abide by-even ISN “”advisers””. There are not 2 laws in this country. Nowhere in these laws does it state ISn is exempt from these laws and regs, commercial reasons are no excuse. Fall into line or fall off. The regulator and “””whatever group or compliance they operate under”” are jokes if this concept is allowed to prevail. If so, let the FPA etc form an industry advisory–no SOAs, no compliance ,no FDS, NO care-would that be great for clients — NOT.
Well
I would be thinking the debacle that went on with MTAA – and the effect that anyone providing any type of advice can have – they should all be at the same standard of qualification and ipso facto -have a reasonable basis for the advice – and it meets the safe harbour interests. as they say the client position is too important to be left to amateurs
Ok, so let me get this clear in my mind. Thequalified advisers need to be more qualified and still meet exceptionally high standards of compliance, etc., whereas unqualified people can do whatever they like disregarding best interests of clients or their circumstances with no consequences, and this is acceptable in the eyes of ISN?
Terrific strategy to solve the under insurance and retirement problems of Australia! Hand everything over to those who are most UNQUALIFIED to do the job!
Do the ISN and AIST really mean that people who give personal advice and are required to know their client must be well educated, but that product floggers, sorry, I mean general advice givers who work for the ISN superannaution funds & do not need to know their client are exempt from learning anything more than how to sell their employers product when contacted.
I know this is ‘catty’ but if they beleive it is good enough for one class of advisor to be appropriately educated then it is good enough for all advisors. As ISN & AIST members deserve to get good advice as well and not be resold by the intra fund advisors. If the ISN and AIST think they should be exempt from this training then lets not call it intra fund advice, but lets call it what it is, as it is not advice, but a sales method of providing free and subsidised sales advice to their members designed specifically to keep customers from moving to another fund. There it has finally been said.
ISN = The Flintstones
Blah Blah Blah, bleet bleet, bleet.
No we have to become professional box tickers and check every last degree.
Whereas a call centre operator can be used to funnel unsuspecting sheep into a one trick pony for product.
Never mind are the customers’ (they can’t be called clients) needs being addressed, is their insurance appropriate, does their AA match their risk tolerance and their risk capacity and will their current strategy put them within coo-ee of their goals.
The ISN continues to demonstrate that blatant self interest by using and abusing other peoples money you can park integrity and get away with complete hypocrisy.
Wow. Amazing how industry funds believe all advisors other than their own require more training. I believe general advice from these internal sales people in the industry funds could do great damage to clients by just not looking at the whole picture of a clients situation. I think it’s time industry funds are required to play under the same rules.
Are these the same groups that, throughout the whole process of FOFA implementation, kept telling us that all these standards and measures were necessary and would have little to no impact on businesses that provide advice?
It’s no less important to get General Advice right than it is to get personal advice right. They’re only using it to eliminate the cost and need to complete proper investigation on what a client really needs – oh, and of course the subsequent outcome that may mean their fund is not in the clients best interest…
Intra fund advice is very dangerous. I have seen people loose $100,000 due to this advice not taking into account the whole situation. It is quite amazing that an adviser is put under extremely strict compliance laws yet the ISN has no compliance laws it seems and the disastrous outcomes I have seen, have been right up there with storm financial. Ban interfund advice! Its bad news!
Squeel, squeel. A lot of damage can be done by phone jockeys in the general advice space, why wouldnt better training and closer supervision be better for ISN and AIST clients? Isnt it about providing sound advice for the members? Squeel, squeel.
Oh dear me. One standard for some, lesser for others. Real advisers to have degrees, but the call centre types can go on exceeding their authority.
Heres a test for Abbott-tell Mr whitely the good times are over, and FOFA, if it remains, applies to all advice. No exceptions
That should sort out the ISN cost base