Speaking to ifa, an IOOF spokesperson said 33 out of 48 planners were let go because they didn’t meet certain requirements. The other 15 advisers who passed the due diligence were moved under the Consultum licence, the spokesperson said.
“We did a review of the My Adviser licence because there weren’t that many authorised reps,” the spokesperson said. “We had to assess every individual planner quite thoroughly in the My Adviser group to ensure they met our minimum education standards and we had to go through quite a bit of due diligence.
“We took on the ones that passed all the requirements. To the others we said, ‘Look you’re not meeting the requirements. Please find a new home’.”
The rest were moved to Consultum because the two licences share “a similar value proposition strategy,” the spokesperson said.
The My Adviser license will eventually be relinquished.
Another IOOF license set to be cancelled is Plan B, which was made up of 12 advisers and largely based in Perth. Those advisers have been moved under Shadforth because it’s a more established licence and brand, the spokesperson said.
“(The two licences) had the same strategy and also the same type of audience of high net worth clients. The whole model was very similar and obviously the larger of two was Shadforth, so it just made sense to do that.
“The last piece would be to move the advisers into one location together (in downtown Perth).”
The IOOF spokesperson said there are no other “short-term” plans to cancel any more licenses. Flagship groups such as Bridges Financial Services will not be touched, the spokesperson said.
so much for IOOF’s so called due dilliagance? They looked at who had the biggest FUM and kept those, one of which is now being sued for $1.6mil!! This article makes a mockery of IOOF’s arrogance!
[quote name=”emkay”]
surely conducting due diligence before purchase would indicate that a % of business they just bought would not fit their culture in the first place? That means they effectively paid for 48 planners and then dumped 33. Seriously as a share holder you would want to know why they are buying 100% of something and then dumping 68% of what you just bought. Clearly you work for them so, “wow, just wow” right back at you[/quote]
Emkay – prospective buyers cannot just get the same level of access into every practice (ie, view client records) as the owner can. Privacy is an important aspect of financial planning. How would you feel as a client knowing that your personal and financial information is readily available to any unrelated company that has an interest in buying a licensee? Your information would pretty much be public.
Thankfully, privacy laws exist.
Only so much due diligence can be conducted prior to purchasing (ie, overall financial positions), but not to a ‘nitty gritty’ level, that then occurs (as per the norm in the industry) after purchase.
‘Standards’ was correct to assert that any company should fully investigate all advisers when they purchase a licensee. To not do so would be dangerous and just asking for trouble.
[quote name=”emkay”]IOOF showing what a class act they are, dumping 33 advisers who suddenly dont pass muster…….what about 6 months ago, were they alright then ?? Once again a provider hanging the adviser out to dry. This industry has a REAL problem, its the VI providers[/quote]
Just an FYI – auditing an adviser and determining the appropriateness of an adviser, their culture, the nature of their advice etc takes more than 1 day and a series of 10 multiple choice questions.
Such practices (ie, buying a group, and then weeding out the ones they don’t believe fit well as they investigate them) has been going on since forever, it is nothing new, nothing to do with Adele’s recent ‘journalism’, and frankly it SHOULD occur.
IF IOOF bought a licensee, and did NOTHING to ensure the advisers are up to scratch, they would be rightly criticised. Adele would have a field day, and wouldn’t even need to resort to lies, mistruths and innuendo for a change.
It beggars belief that they are now [i]criticised[/i] for conducting due diligence on new advisers. Wow. Just wow.
IOOF showing what a class act they are, dumping 33 advisers who suddenly dont pass muster…….what about 6 months ago, were they alright then ?? Once again a provider hanging the adviser out to dry. This industry has a REAL problem, its the VI providers
So the LIcensee who is meant to be responsible for the AR’s training, compliance, and advice standards simply ditches them because it is more convenient for the organisation rather than giving them the chance/training to improve? (Perhaps one would argue as should have been done originally). Wow!!
past = passed.