In a submission to the Financial System Inquiry, Vince Doe, who describes himself as a financial planner who has been “involved in financial services for over 30 years having commenced working for the CBA at a country branch which had no computers”, suggested a new legislative structure for the industry.
“Simply I would legislate to ensure that no large Investment House with a significant position in the
industry could own more than 50 per cent of a fund that they recommended,” Mr Doe wrote.
“This could be achieved progressively with a divestment of say a minimum 10 per cent per annum over 5 years. The result would be a break in the nexus of the major players worrying about funnelling product into their own funds.
“Clients and advisers would then have more confidence that there was some independence of
recommendations for the approved [product] lists of the investment houses such as the large banks.”
Mr Doe added that while he believes FOFA provided some “good changes”, the industry requires a “small revolution”.
I think he may be a relative of John Doe. But hiding his name does not mean the points raised are not valid. in fact, being anonymous is probably a smarter play than the very public comments made by another insto planner of late.
Given I have had 30 years experience in Financial Services, all of which has been with CBA and CBA related companies, and I have never heard of Vince Doe, one must wonder what his real history is. I would love to know.