As part of the group’s Advice 2.0 overhaul, IOOF’s self-employed aligned adviser brands have been reorganised into two core groups, each with a new chief.
Millenium3 CEO Helen Blackford will head IOOF’s integrated advice businesses, which specialised in third-party services such as accounting, insurance brokers or external AFSLs. The integrated group houses Lonsdale, Millenium3 and IOOF Alliances.
Meanwhile, RI Advice CEO Peter Ornsby will be chief of the second group centred around holistic advice, holding RI Advice and Consultum Financial Advisers.
CEOs Terry Dillon and Nathan Stanton will continue to lead Shadforth Financial Group and Bridges, respectively.
Bridges has been converted to a fully salaried network, with a focus on scaled partner institutions (credit unions and customer owned banks).
Meanwhile, the FSP brand in addition to the Executive Wealth Management and Actuate licences has been shuttered.
As IOOF released its full-year results on Monday, it also indicated it had acquired Wealth Central, a proprietary advice and client engagement technology platform.
IOOF CEO Renato Mota said the Advice 2.0 initiative is the group’s “strategic response” to the fluctuating advice industry.
“In this new era, Advice 2.0 will deliver a step-change in the quality and affordability of advice and construct a sustainable long-term advice model,” Mr Mota said.
“The acquisition of Wealth Central is an important piece in the Advice 2.0 puzzle to achieve this. This is differentiating technology that IOOF now owns exclusively, for the benefit of our adviser network.
“It will significantly improve and streamline the client experience, meaning less time is spent collecting data and more time is spent on creating a plan to help the client achieve their financial goals. It also reinforces our commitment to continue to innovate in the space and build new advice delivery methods.”
He added that the COVID crisis has reinforced the importance of creating an accessible environment allowing Australians to gain quality advice.
Chief advice officer Darren Whereat commented that the advice restructure will ensure AFSL sustainability.
“The AFSL landscape is changing,” Mr Whereat said.
“We have continued to adapt and invest so that we are well positioned to deliver compelling propositions to advisers within the employed, self-employed and self-licensed segments, as we support them to create greater efficiencies and more sustainable business models.”
Just extraordinary that there are people who still think AFSL Management don’t need FP qualifications and experience.
The AFSL appoints & oversees the Advisers and is responsible for the client advice. Always. That’s the law.
The Industry problems are NOT the result of rogue Advisers, they are the result of inept leadership.
And if you think the role of AFSL Management is to “run the business”, well then, two of the top guys at IOOF don’t even friggin have a business degree and the ‘operations’ lose money year after year. Just laughable.
If the management running these businesses are as much ANZ as the lineup here, you wont be able to be confident in your compliance.
Have a look at what’s gone on, more then enough ANZ and a couple of others over the last few years. They have been running it like a bank for a long time.
can’t wait to see the fallout of planners leaving MLC and IOOF … especially now that Bridges planners have had their BOLR option cancelled mid 2021. Agree its a vertically integrated dogs breakfast that will result in many more converting to self-licenced
Strategy is actually ANZ 2.0 and from the inside I can say it is all turning to sh!t
then leave – simple
Yep couldn’t agree more. It’s been coming for a few years from this lot.
How many ex NAB FP/MLC advisers are to be sacked?
Four.
I heard 5?
So how many years experience as an adviser have any of them got please?
zero is the answer to the question.
Not correct. One of the three has actual client advice experience.
They don’t need to. There job is the run the business, not provide financial advice to clients. They will appoint the leadership team to oversea legislative and regulatory requirements etc.
I’m not sure why these sill questions keep getting raised on executive level positions. Poor advice from financial planners got this industry into this mess, imagine how much more of a mess it would have been if financial planners were at executive level.
So the ONLY reason we’re all in this mess is the poor advice from financial planners?
Not the inadequate oversight of overpaid managers?
Or the product-pushing imperative of FUM-obsessed executives?
Or the ludicrous licensing regime?
Perhaps the inept oversight of a hostile regulator?
Successive governments more obsessed with motion than progress?
The overly complex regulatory environment?
The annual harvesting of millions of dollars in licensing fees from advisers and their clients?
The closed shop environment these managers and executives get to swan around in, pretending that they’re adding value in some way?
It’s hardly silly to expect that the people actually in charge of huge swathes of the advisory base have some commitment to the notion of financial advice, instead of just seeing it as a distribution channel.
Having seen the bewilderingly low calibre of the senior managers put on the stand by the Royal Commission, I think the bigger issue is that not enough questions have been asked about this cohort of institutionalised incompetence.
But, sure, it’s all because of us nasty advisers, right?
Just to answer you final question. Yes, yes it is.
Just to clarify, you’re actually saying that the only thing wrong with this industry, literally the only thing, is advisers?
That everything else is hunky dory and if only advisers would shape up, everything would be fixed?
I’d love to hear your answers to all of my other questions too – I take it you feel that none of those things bear any responsibility for where we find ourselves?
I’m not saying advisers are innocent – I’m not blind – but to put the blame for all ills at our feet is a bit much.
Yep, all at financial adviser level. If they always provided advice in the best interest of their clients the industry would not be in this mess.
I find a lot of these comments on this website disturbing and most likely deter people from seeing a financial adviser. You all need to be more positive. no one wants service from a Derek or Dorothy Downer.
I don’t disagree with you – I’m embarrassed by a lot of the comments here as well.
But it is becoming difficult to maintain a positive outlook in the current environment and time.
Take your point about best interests. I completely agree with you. But:
– Which one of our legislated best interests duties would you recommend we follow first?
– How would you define ‘best interests’?
– How do you see vertical integration / institutional ownership (which is what we’re really talking about with this article) fitting in with serving peoples best interests?
I’m not being obnoxious, these are legitimate questions that advisers are wrestling with at the moment.
And the bewildered silence from those in charge leaves us all feeling very, very nervous about what we do.
Personally, I find it abhorrent that institutions are allowed to own advisory businesses. It’s akin to Pfizer owning medical clinics. Yet our industry is made up of layers of compromises put in place to protect this broken system that has failed clients and advisers for 10-15 years.
So when I see articles like this, about people earning large salaries to perpetuate that broken system, it offends me. Personally and professionally.
And when somebody says that those people in charge shouldn’t be held responsible for any of the problems, well that just blows me away.
So, yes, advisers should – are legally required to, in fact – always provide advice in the best interests of their clients.
And the vast, overwhelming majority do.
So I’m sorry to hear that discussions on this forum might discourage people from seeking sorely needed advice – but we can’t pretend to be positive in the face of all this anymore.
we have all seen same bewildering low calibre of advisers too
Whoever you are Anon, you are speaking complete nonsense and need to take a good look at the crap you are spitting out.
There’s a lot of us so we must be right.
How many of those leadership team members are from places that had terrible culture and processes and in fact started all the enquiry off?
50%
A vertically integrated dog’s breakfast.
Jobs for the boys or girls in this case whereats side kicks, nepotism at its best and the board are blind to this
although it will help with duplication and streamlining of costs The strategy 2.0 will push advisers to become self licensed
Perhaps a good thing
Most definitely, whereat is actually running the show not the CEO. They should be calling this new strategy ANZ 2.0
There is a few other string pullers apart from him and from the similar institutions
100% jobs for the boys or girls. Have a look at the last say 3 years to 5 years of hires in positions of power inside IOOF and the businesses they now own.
It’s not just chance that IOOF is looking more and more like a bank run institution now.