National Seniors has urged consumers to “exercise caution” following the federal government’s announcement that new details have been added to the public register yesterday.
“We welcome that an effort is being made to improve transparency and accountability in the financial advice market, but there are still holes in the system,’’ National Seniors CEO Michael O’Neill said.
“Missing crucial information includes complaints and claims against advisers; the details of an adviser’s professional indemnity insurance; and payment arrangements including a percentage breakdown indicating how an adviser was remunerated last financial year.”
The lobby group has called for the inclusion of commission payment disclosures and whether an adviser has any financial link to a product they recommend.
In addition, Mr O’Neill criticised the register for only covering a period of five years, meaning advisers associated with high profile cases such as Storm and Opes Prime will not be identified.
An old buzzard with too much time on his hands without a real job, voted into a position over a group of whingers, getting his name in the media and in front of the pollies to make himself feel important before his time runs out…
But enough about Shorten, sounds like O’Neill is of the same ilk!
It does go back further than 5 years, I don’t know what he’s on about there. There are many advisers listed with roles back in the 1990’s/early 2000’s.
The damn things not accurate anyway, looking up plenty of advisers I know, there is so much information missing it’s a joke.
#PerceptionCorrection
http://www.positivityforplanners.com….
Let’s tell it like it is
All this from the intergenerational theft lobby group.
Frankly, my clients are not concerned about every little detail of my life. They are concerned about the excessive and increasing amounts of tax they have to pay to fund age pensions for people with significant assets.
Advisers should also have to give a DNA sample to be analysed and addded to the ASIC database, along with a few hair samples.
What about a register for fund managers which shows how many products they decimated in the GFC and how much they made in bonuses by trying to convince planners that their product was investment grade, when it really wasn’t.
Product collapses are not caused by advisers – we don’t manage the money at the product level – the fund manager does. The general public doesn’t seem to understand this basic concept.
I am disappoint that the profession I work in is the least trusted. What do people believe that financial planners operate like in the movie “the wolf of wall street” or something? It is so hard to do a good job for someone these days cost effectively. I also don’t believe all my details should be public but I have nothing to hide so hey do a 20 year on me if you want. Still -it just shows how untrusted the profession is which is disappointing.
Really? How many advisers were part of the Storm group? Plus does he know that Opes Prime was a stockbroking group, not financial planners? How far back does he want to go? The register already shows what links your AFSL has. What info on PI does he want? It should just be that they have it – Y or N. But then how can they be an auth rep without it? A breakdown of remuneration? sounds like more red tape for the sake of red tape. Mr ONeil just likes to get his name in the paper…
I wonder if the FPA will have anything to say about this? Maybe all professions should have their details such as this online? This is another case of bashing the advisers. The whole industry and government (except advisers) are on one side of the fence pointing to advisers and saying “It’s all their fault”. Financial Services does not work in isolation, bashing advisers is not a solution. In my 40 years in the industry I have never seen the public confidence in advisers so low and it seems that one consequence is many consumers are now “Preying at the altar of residential property”, taking on high risk and taking their own advice. Many advisers have gone with the flow and now just flog property and SMSF. Unintended consequences anyone?
These people/groups will not stop demanding more until this industry is decimated! Next thing they’ll be demanding on the register is financial planners home address, wife/partners details, dependent details and anything else that is not relevant! Last time I looked, weren’t commissions/fees disclosed in SOA’s & FSG’s, including any interests Financial Planners have in products! Our society has gone back to the witch hunt days! Wake up Australia!
Anything else you want included while you’re there…holiday destinations, hobbies? Wasn’t Opes Prime a stockbroking collapse, I don’t recall poor financial advice being anyway involved with that. I love the way external parties just lump every collapse together and lay it on financial advisers.
And you want to include complaints also. What if the complaint was unjustified, vexatious etc but the adviser still gets held partly liable. Do you think it’s fair to have the adviser’s name publicly tarnished? Maybe we should hold a public register of client names who regularly complain so we can avoid94 them…..