In comments provided to ifa, the FPA figure and Hewison Private Wealth founder accused the new entrants to the “independent” advice market of “taking advantage of the current hyper-sensitive environment to further their own interests”.
Turning first to CPA’s much-publicised announcement of an independent advice venture, Mr Hewison took umbrage, given the accounting body’s previous opposition to higher ethical and education standards during the debates around APES 230.
“If CPA Australia had supported the original higher standards proposed in 2014, we would already have all professional accountants providing non-conflicted advice,” he said.
“However, it chose to side with the same institutions they’re now criticising, meaning for it to come charging out at the expense of others is self-serving and ignores the truth of recent history.”
Second, Mr Hewison criticised the launch of Integral – a Securitor practice established by Westpac adviser David Simon – for its claim that it will provide an “independent focus” for clients despite its being bank-aligned and physically located in the bank’s CBD headquarters.
“Integral Private Wealth is another example of a firm founded by an institutional stalwart who recognises that consumers are now more suspicious of the vertically integrated,” Mr Hewison argued.
“Financial advisers employed by those institutions are seeing the future of financial advice as independent.”
A number of commenters on the ifa website have suggested Integral may be in breach of Section 923A of the Corporations Act by claiming to have an “independent” focus.
Cheers funky goose, I misinterpreted something along the way…
John is not pushing a vested interest Matthew Ross. I agreed with his criticism of new entrants that do.
What vested interests is John pushing above funky goose?
I reckon he makes some pretty damn valid points. CPA objects to APES230 then turns 180 degrees 12 months later and pointing out that another adviser is possibly breaking the law.
Good on him for having the courage to put his name behind what he has to say.
The reality is that it is typically those within the industry that give the media the oxygen fuelled by their vested interests.
…but then maybe funky goose, the media doesn’t see much value in ‘good news’.
The debate in front of us, that you perceive to be an act of putting others down’ I see as a debate to improve on what is in place. Unfortunately this debate gets more oxygen in the media because it attracts more comments, more debate, gets under our skin more.
We can dance around with daisies in our hands patting each other on the back for how good we are, and write about it – it doesn’t necessarily mean the media are going to publish it.
Cynical point of view, but evidence to suggest there is a lot of truth to the saying ‘if it bleeds, it leads’.
Agreed. The self promotion of this supposed new age of professionalism is a contradiction in terms. A true profession is defined by the referrals the practise receives in response to good service and advice. We have not done any marketing or self promotion over 2 decades and have no intentions of changing. Call me old fashioned but self promotion that includes putting others down shows a lack of class and sadly has taken over any meaningful debate.
This is healthy debate. Neither the accounting industry nor the planning industry is without fault or self-interest but if they can reach common ground each may progress to a true advice focus proposition. The planning industry, despite all the good words, cannot change quickly nor remove all biases because of its long and sordid history. The sordid history is not the fault of the advisers but the fact that they came from an institutional embryo but some have grown disproportionately wealthy, and hence tied, due to that ownership by historical institutional product, structure, BLR and other support (financial and non-financial). A financial planning business is expensive to run and unless a business has enough financial critical mass or backing it will struggle to survive the first 5 years. This start-up money is more often than not provided by the institutions and once there they are almost impossible to get rid of.
We need a real pattern interrupt. We haven’t got that yet.
I don’t read this and see John promoting himself Melinda. I see him taking a stand to protect our profession.
I agree we need to focus on what value we add to people’s lives, but we can’t just stand and watch people do misleading acts (probably accidental ones) which could lead to more negative press – we need to nip it in the bud and keep each other accountable to the high standards we expect of professionals.
How about we start promoting all the good advisers and unite the profession behind quality instead of self-interest?
http://www.positivityforplanners.com….
#PerceptionCorrection
its time Financial advisor, FPA & AFA wake up and accept that accountants and Financial planning we be one in the same ie Advisory, as accountants are going the way of the dinosaur as technology replaces a lot of the work that was performed by accountants