In April, the federal government formally established FASEA to oversee the professional conduct of the financial advice sector.
Among a line-up of academics and executives, two former practising advisers were appointed to the body’s board: Matthew Rowe, chief executive of CBA-linked Countplus and former FPA chair, and Deborah Kent, principal of NAB-aligned Integra Financial Services and a former president of the AFA.
Since the announcement, members of the non-institutional advice community have voiced concerns to ifa that the board will not truly represent the various industry factions and sub-cultures.
Fergus Hardingham, principal of FM Financial Solutions and an IFAAA member, told ifa he was concerned that the interests of independent advisers will not be heard within FASEA meetings, given the institutional alignment of the two industry representatives.
“The IFAAA represents from my perspective advisers who strive to provide a higher standard of advice without conflicts of interest,” Mr Hardingham said.
“Surely the IFAAA should therefore have a seat at the table to help set the agenda from the advice provider perspective.”
A former principal of an Adelaide-based boutique firm, speaking to ifa on condition of anonymity, also voiced concerns about the ability of the two industry representatives to reflect the views of the IFA sector.
“The entire independent advice community is very disappointed and confused over how the government-appointed FASEA board does not have any representation from our sector,” the former principal said.
“The two appointed FASEA advice directors are sourced from the seriously conflicted vertically integrated advice businesses of two major institutions, and one of these institutions has the most unenviable track record with ASIC investigations in recent times.”
Another non-aligned adviser, speaking to ifa on the same condition, said it was another example of the “ongoing industry manipulation by the big associations and big dealer groups”.
However, fellow member of the non-aligned community, Chris Morcom of Hewison Private Wealth, dismissed the concerns of his peers as unfounded.
“I think it’s an independent, secondary body with a clearly set agenda – to raise minimum standards – and if people don’t like it then bad luck,” he said.
“Any concerns around the board having big-end-of-town bias or something, don’t have any foundation.”
Mr Rowe and Ms Kent both declined to comment for this article, but said they are looking forward to providing updates on FASEA’s work at a later stage.
Unfortunately you will never get any sort of non insto focused result whilst ever Libs go to banks for a job when not in govt and likewise with Labour getting an interim job with their mates. Kelly and Arthur are both former NAB execs. Where is Baird currently working?
Seriously you did not actually expect fairness given the total hands off approach to vertical integration despite all of the overseas evidence that it is hopelessly conflicted and flawed.
Fergus, as a CFP professional and member of the profession, can I assume that if two fellow professionals were elected to an important board you have contacted them to table specific concerns you might have about representation of independent issues. If you have done that and the answers weren’t satisfactory, I assume you have then approached the Chair of the board. Have you taken these steps as a member of the profession prior to simply hitting the press.
If the above hasn’t occurred it’s never too late. Matthew and Deb are very approachable people. And if you Google Matthew’s name and put a date range of mid 2014 in, you will find his various roles at the time and public statements make him the last person accused on being a doormat for the banks.
That’s right Fergus – you must follow bureaucratic protocols! how dare you use your free speech publicly!! good onya for speaking out, these insto stoofes have recked our industry and now they are being rewarded by their fruends in canberra. and look who comes to defend? another bank/fpa mouthpiece
The board appears to have a good mix of people on there and i think we are well served by having Matthew Rowe, Deborah Kent and Mark Brimble in there. The first two have been practitioners, they know and have experienced the issues that we face as advisers. Prof Brimble has been very active in this space improving the educational standards via his work at Griffith Uni, his chairmanship of the FPA’s Educational Committee and his interaction with a range of planners and AFSLs.
We are lucky that this committee was formed under a Liberal Govt, otherwise the makeup of the committee would be significantly different. One could imagine a committee being loaded with Union Super stooges who would have only one objective, which would be the dismantling of the IFA sector. Look at the boards of most Union Super Funds and there is a litany of past and present Union officials with little or no qualifications in finance, economics, law or ethics. I recall reading one blokes resume and his only qualification was a Cert IV in Shop Stewardship (or something similar). Be thankful that that stooge Whitely didnt get a gig on this committee.
With only 32 members the IFAAA was never going to get any representation on this committee. Representation by advisers, which we were never assured of, was always going to come from somewhere that represents the bulk of advisers.
So in short what you’re saying is be happy for second best. Just be thankful David Whitely is not on. Not a good case. I look forward to seeing you enroll in a Griffith University specially designed financial planning Course and buying one of Prof Bimbles text books. No conflict there at all.
Get over yourself buddy. Obviously a glass half empty sort of guy. Who would you have on the board instead of the people already appointed? Name some names and pin your colours to the mast. I dont need to enrol in any course, because unlike the majority of advisers, i already have a degree and other post-grad quals. But if i did need to, then i’d be sure to look at what Prof Brimble and his team at Griffith have to offer because i know that it would be quality. I’m pretty certain that Mark didnt need to get involved in the FPA’s Education Committee nor the FASEA, but has done so because he’s about raising the professionalism of Financial Planning. Not simply sitting around moaning on discussion boards like you are. Be interested to hear your full list of appointments to FASEA….
This body does not represent the wider advice community. I have written to the Minister asking for a response to their selection process and so far have had no response. How can the FPA receiving payments of up to $60,000 a year from it’s Professional partner program and offering those same members 10% discounts of membership fees call itself anything else other than conflicted.
Funny isn’t it how if I was to get paid $10K or $60K from AMP or a bank they call that conflicted remuneration and yet the FPA can get these payments from institutions and it’s acceptable. And then they go off and claim to represent us. No wonder the Government won’t listen to them.
In my dealings with the Former Chairman of the FPA, Matthew Rowe focus was on lifting the standards of Financial Planners across the country to benefit the Australian Consumer. When Matthew was appointed to the board I was extremely pleased that a person of such quality who understands the benefits a well-qualified Financial Adviser can provide will be able to represent us. I would suggest that you look at Matthew’s past record of achievements before you make these comments in the media.
One of the greatest problems in our Profession is the readiness of a few to continually publicly criticise everything and everyone else. If we want to be treated as professionals we need to start acting like one. Take your concerns through your association that you are promoting and speak to these people privately instead of through the media.
Disagree wayne, rowe and co at the FPA have always sold out the independents and done the bidding of instos and their grubby CFP deals. You boutiques should join us instead of those big bank cronies.
As long as Fergus and his IFAAA cronies pursue the “no conflict of interest” line they will never have any credibility. Fee for service advice still has major conflicts of interest. Accountants recommending SMSFs is a classic case of outrageously conflicted, and mostly inappropriate, fee for service advice. Conflicts need to be managed through ethics and regulation. They can never be managed by dictating payment methods.