In a statement, Count Financial said Sydney-based practice Plan Protect, previously from Godfrey Pembroke, had joined the dealer group.
Count said the firm had a “strong reputation for providing strategic advice” and was “very much a family business”, with practice principal Janne Ashton’s son Byron Pritchard currently undergoing his professional year under Count’s program.
“Changing licensees is a significant decision for any business, so we started with an open mind and spoke to a number of options in the market,” Ms Ashton said.
“In the end, you hear a lot of similar rhetoric, but after speaking with the Count team it was clear they are a full-service licensee committed to helping us offer the best service to our clients.”
Count chief advice officer Andrew Kennedy said business support had been a key factor in Ms Ashton’s decision making.
“Janne and the team at Plan Protect have a reputation for delivering exceptional client outcomes so we’re extremely happy to have them coming on board,” Mr Kennedy said.
“I know one of their key reasons for joining us was the succession opportunities we can provide, and we will work closely with them so that can eventuate in the years to come.”
In addition, the firm had added two previously IOOF-licensed firms: Financial Stability, led by Melbourne adviser Sonia Turkovic; and holistic advice firm YS Financial Planning, founded by Yasu Kuramochi in 2015.
“Sonia and Yasu are quality advisers that bring experience and expertise to our network and they will be a great cultural fit for the Count Financial community,” Mr Kennedy said.
Is this IFA or the count weekly website
Try leave Count and see what you are giving up signing that awful one sided agreement
The firm has just given ownership of all its clients to Count as it is the licensee who owns the clients.
I wonder why this comment was downvoted. Is it not true?
Interesting, tell us more.
The licensee is the titular owner of the clients and can force the adviser to divest itself of any clients the licensee wants to specify. The licensee can unilaterally decide to compensate clients for anything, ranging from completely justified to the opposite and then demand that the adviser compensates the licensee for those payments.
Many contracts, especially from the large licensees give the licensee almost complete discretion to take clients away and assign them to other advisers or any of many other measures. It is after all the licensee who receives the money.
AMP can do what it does because of the contracts the advisers signed.
The above was acceptable while the licensee carried all the liability. These days, with shared liability – both are fully liable for the advice – the current situation is … weird and completely conflicted. The licensee has all the power, the adviser carries almost all the costs.