On the latest episode of the ifa Show, Helen Baker echoed comments by others in the industry that the current education requirements must be addressed in government’s Education Standards for Financial Advisers policy paper, as well as the mental health of financial advisers.
But Ms Baker went one step further.
“I’m going to put myself out on a limb here. I’d love to ask how many politicians have a financial adviser? How many of them actually have their own advisers, so they actually have an experience that is hopefully a great experience that they can apply?” she said.
“Because I don’t know if they do. I wonder if they’re in that camp that just thinks, ‘Oh, all they are is sales people and they sell an investment for commission.’ Or whether they’ve actually had an experience that has dealt with some life event issue, good or bad, and they’ve seen the benefits that it adds, or they can see where they are now compared to where they would be without that advice.”
Ms Baker argued that any politician who has or does have good experiences with a financial adviser should be championing the industry and “leading the charge”.
“[Politicians should be] actually advocating for how great it is to get financial advice and doing their best to get it,” she said.
Listen to the full episode with Ms Baker here.
Politicians have no need for financial advice. Their fat Commonwealth Pensions and years of pandering to elitist corporations ensures they have unlimited employment options when they cease parliament. Just take a look at the list of ex-politicians on Macquarie Banks payroll (past and present)
Libs are tightly aligned with the property industry and Labor is tightly aligned with Union super. They don’t want to hear from anyone who might suggest something different. Not only do politicians avoid financial advisers themselves, they also promote policies that prevent consumers from accessing professional financial advice.
I dealt with one former federal politician as an account holder. Close to the worst client I’ve had to deal with. Thought they knew so much but in actual fact had very little understanding of investing and wealth creation. They were too closed minded to be a good client. Near the bottom of the GFC they had their investments in cash because of their understanding of briefings to the federal politicians.
Most of them are generally failed somethings in a different life except a handful and therefore have few assets so have little need nor understanding what good advice means and these are the people running the country.
they are all fat and happy on the public purse milking taxpayers dry. They don’t need a financial planner
Many use inhouse intrafund salesmen attached to the super funds, that they have legislated to be excluded from fund member informed consent. So many of these politicians & Govt employees take advantage of the naive fund members who don’t realise they are paying for the advice being received by these politicians & bureaucrats. What a joke.
please note that the Defined Benefit fund for Federal Politicians ended in 2004…..it was grandfathered though.
An adviser wouldn’t be able to satisfy their AML/CTF checks to take them on as clients
It is not so much whether the politicians have a financial adviser, but how many of the senior executive in ASIC and Treasury have one. It is the senior executives that make their recommendations to Government, and if none of them have one that is a much bigger issue (for us).
You quite correct. I spoke with a senior member of Treasury a few years back who specialised in the financial services areas. In essence, he thought life insurance was a rort, bordering on a scam. I pointed out that due to his terms and conditions, remuneration, and the fact that life insurance was built into this, that he didn’t understand the need in the community and the overall benefit to society that life insurance provides.
Yep, most bureaucrats in the APS have great job security, are paid way more than they deserve, and have perks like 15.4% super contributions (for those that aren’t in the old defined benefit funds).
I remember speaking to someone in the PMs department a few years ago who was arguing that they do represent the Average Australian because “50% of us are women”. I asked where were the casual workers; the ones on the minimum wage; the shift workers. Their response was “we have it hard here as well, sometimes we have to work over the weekend”.
Yep and they had Planners…the ones that put them into nil entry fee products at AMP, with high ongoing costs, probably 5% entry fees on regular SGC and made 3% after fees over the 20 years. Similar to CEO’s at Choice.
We wouldnt be able to help out polititians as the fact find they fill in will be full of lies.
Closest they would have got is a mortgage broker (or more likely their mates in banks) to arrange loans for their burgeoning investment property portfolio…..
Politicians are heavily invested in their property developer mates and will keep policies that maintains the high value of property prices. And yes, they do have the government pension that will look after their retirement.
I can’t see a politicians coming to me asking about Age Pension entitlements, worried if they’d have enough. Most get advice from an Accountant and get sold a SMSF and buy an investment property on the Sunshine Coast, then retire on their lifetime indexed pension.
lifetime government pension thats not asset or income tested? system was moulded for them, why would they need advice, the have worked it out.
Why would politician want a financial planner when they can simply retire on a lifetime government pension!
Lifetime pensions ended in 2004. Everyone entering Parliament since that date doesn’t have them anymore.