Independent Financial Advisers Association of Australia (IFAAA) president and working group member Daniel Brammall has issued a strongly-worded condemnation of the government’s announcement, saying it does not live up to the original promise from government and ASIC.
“I can’t believe all of the other [members of the working group] have fallen into line,” Mr Brammall told ifa.
“Without [inclusion of a] financial services guide and information about independence, I really don’t see how this register is transparent at all,” he added.
In a statement, Mr Brammall said that without the inclusion of these two elements, the public register “runs the risk of becoming nothing more than an online phone book”.
The IFAAA president also said that the register was a “lost opportunity” to help stop the misuse of the term “independent financial adviser” by some in the advice profession.
“Planners who describe their services as ‘independent’ when they don’t meet the test are – at best – creating confusion and – at worst – engaging in misleading conduct,” the statement said.
“This confusion is easily removed by making it clear on the Government’s Enhanced Public Register of Financial Advisers.”
The final register will, however, include information about AFSL ownership and alignment, which fellow working group member Peter Johnston said can largely be attributed to the lobbying efforts of himself and Mr Brammall during working group negotiations.
A response for Laurie…
Why should IFAAA get any attention? Because our message is very compelling which is why we’re getting invited to be on ABC last night:
http://iview.abc.net.au/progra…|iviewAdwords_AdWords_:the%20business%20abc_e_g_46599154279_&gclid=CPiE-ZnL0sECFQZvvAodnwMAsA#playing
I don’t want to rant for too long so will keep this as short as possible.
There are a lot of great financial planners in Australia but they don’t appear trustworthy by the public due to being associated with mongrels who are bringing our profession into disrepute. It’s going to happen again and again.
Independent financial advisers aren’t better – it’s the way we do business that is better. And this is why Laurie we’re getting attention and a seat at the table in committees and on TV. Because the way we do business makes far more sense to non-FP people.
Well said Chris. Being on a register, like using the term ‘independent’, does not make a poor adviser a good one. At least consumers will be able to see/know which advisers are accredited.
As for anti V-I, the UK experiments worked well didn’t they? and if you look at the IFAAA website there are only 13 of them and as such, are overrepresented in the working group.
Another whole bunch of people wasting taxpayers money . Advisers are already required to provide an FSG & Adviser Profile at intial meeting . How would any register enhance this . Next some clowns will want to put elephant stamps next to adviser names . As stated previously on this forum , there are far too many people leeching of the industry without actually being planners . By all means have a register of banned advisers . The rest is just window dressing and will not protect consumers .
Laurie, they don’t speak for the whole industry or pretend to, only for the growing IFA sector. They have a disproportiante influence because asic and politicians know deep down that indpendence is the future of advice – just look overseas. And i think youll find they have more than 13 members, you are just being facetious
Please explain to me how the IFAAA which is really only a group of 13 advisers can really express the views of a whole profession. Too many splinter groups having a disproportionate say in government policy. Time for a reality check.