In an exclusive interview with ifa, Senator Sinodinos said the federal government would not be opposed to introducing more explicit disclosure on this issue, as called for by AIOFP in a live submission to Mr Sinodinos in Hobart earlier this month.
“The idea that a service provider would have to disclose who they are owned by, whether it is a big bank or someone else, I don’t see a problem with that idea,” Mr Sinodinos said.
The senator said he intends to “pursue” the issue, and believes it would be a “sensible thing” which is in line with the government’s aim to “improve transparency and improve information to the consumer”.
As there is already a requirement to disclose licensee ownership in some client documents such as the financial services guide, making the disclosure more obvious or clear to the consumer would not constitute “additional red tape” and would therefore not be ruled out by the government’s moratorium on further regulation, he said.
ABC, always be careful.
It may be the Planner who has the relationship, but it is usually the AFSL that gets the payment (and then passes it on to the Planner, assuming there is one).
I would have thought that the practical reality is that no one owns the client.
It is however the planner who has the relationship…….
check your agreement, in ours we own the client and free to move dealer groups with our clients, Our dealer Group doesn’t own the client unlike many others.
Disagree Craig, and your example is a bad one. I don’t think Arthur is referring to a client seeing a Westpac adviser. He is referring to a white label planner . e.g. Financial Wisdom, Count etc.
But I do wonder, what is your objection to such disclosure on stationary (letterhead), business cards and the like? And of course the SoA. I would have thought this hardly difficult and very useful to the (potential) client.
Why is this an idiot idea?
The Afsl always owns the clients
Thats what the Corporations act says, as does ASIC
Never forget that !!!
Here is a Qs; An adviser, with clients, leaves one licensee, and is authorised by a new licensee. he brings the clients with him. The SoA has been accepted by the first licensee. The adviser then leaves the second licensee and abandons the clients. The adviser no longer has an authority with any licensee. I know this to be a not uncommon event. Who owns the clients?
Clients in dark on insto ownership http://www.ifa.com.au/news/121…[/url]
Craig sorry disagree, with all the white labelling the banks & insurance company. I found talking to clients & others they were unaware of the parent company, Yes its disclosed but you need to make it moron proof as possible.
What a crock – have a look at the FSG and its always fully disclosed. Another idiot idea to protect morons who dont bother to READ THE DOCUMENTS. Perhaps we shoul put a sign on the local westpac branch that the final owner of the advice provision is Westpac…
It beggars belief that no law exists such that such disclosure needs to be made now.
In addition, the ASIC definition of what is independent advice needs to be changed. The current definition helps nobody.
Given how the institutions spend all that money communicating how good they are you have to wonder what possible reason there would be as to why they would not want to put the institutional logo on the front door, letterheads and cards. I’m sure they wouldnt want to be misinterpreted as someone trying to represent they are something they are not so you would almost think they would welcome the opportunity.