Speaking to ifa, FPA head of policy and government relations Ben Marshan said advisers should “absolutely be looking to take market share from accountants” when it comes to the self-managed superannuation market.
“Financial planners should be absolutely backing themselves to be the experts in this space, it’s what planners do day in and day out, but it’s not what accountants do day in and day out,” Mr Marshan said.
“Financial planners are significantly better placed to be providing advice to consumers around self-managed super funds.”
Asked whether the new adviser education standards – which Mr Marshan said will also apply to accountants operating under a limited licence – will provide an opportunity for advisers to increase their market share, he replied that it was unlikey to add “any additional impetus”.
“Financial planners have much more ability to test and understand clients’ overall financial position, their level of understanding around whether they’ve got the capacity to run a self-managed super fund, whether they’ve got the desire to run a self-managed super fund, so I would say there’s merit in that idea,” he said.
“But what I will say is that the AFSL regime has been set up the way it has, and accountants are able to apply for the limited licences and therefore they’ll be able to keep going, I would suggest most accountants already have degrees, most of them I would be okay with post-graduate study, so I wouldn’t think it’s too much of a stretch for a lot of them to be doing additional study.”
Perhaps Ben made this comment to get some attention. He spends most of his time writing whitepapers that nobody reads, and lobbying politicians and regulators who take no notice of him whatsoever.
The comments on this website are the most external feedback he has ever received beyond “thanks very much for your input we will give it appropriate consideration in due course.”
Important Disclaimer: Please Note. As the FPA gets money from product manufacturers via the professional partner program these are the opinions of AMP and other like product manufacturers and not necessarily the opinions of all financial planners.
Financial planning is basic common sense with a bit of tech knowledge thrown in.
It’s not hard and the industry has turned into a joke. It’s on slightly higher level of credibility to car or timeshare sales people at the moment with all this nonsense going on about targeting same sex couples and gender based advice. Absolute rubbish.
This FP industry has become a joke.
Agree with the comments below that planners and accountants working together are the best option, but only for that [i]tiny proportion of the population that is better off with an SMSF[/i]. Most consumers don’t need an accountant for super advice at all, because they don’t need an SMSF!
Planners generally have the ability to recommend either an SMSF or a public offer fund. In 99% of cases the public offer fund will be the better option for the client. Yet accountants only recommend SMSFs because that’s their only option. Thanks to accountants, Australians have a bigger problem with overuse of SMSFs than they do with overuse of codeine, statins, anti depressants, or sauvignon blanc. I think the point Ben Marshan was making is that consumers will get far better advice about the [b]appropriateness[/b] of an SMSF from a planner.
Ben Marshan should stick to his knitting, namely, solving the CFP / FASEA debacle.
A good accounting firm (or FP firm for that matter) will offer a diversified range of financial services, and manage relationships with individual families across several generations.
Ben of course would struggle to understand that, given his industry fund background.
I think Ben woke up this morning and realized over a third of the FPA income will disappear due to an inability to sell the CFP education program enrollments in 2018. He thought..”mmm, How do we replace it I know bag out and insult accountants”…. In this uncertainty how many planners would be going out and enrolling in a CFP Program when they have to do a Grad Dip so goodbye income for FPA.
Ben , do you represent an association of banks or planners. The best advisers to support an SMSF trustee is one who knows the client , and this includes accountants who are now licensed, financial planners who work from an accountants practise , or a financial planner that works with an accountant who can advise on tax and structures. Lets not fight with accountants but work with accountancy firms to make this a better industry.
Agreed Garry.
If you look at Ben’s CV he spent 9+ years with an industry fund, so its likely he’s had little exposure to SMSFs, IFAs, or SME accounting firms.
And he’s Head of Policy at the FPA.
Btw, that 100-point plan worked a treat…
100 point plan plus opt out…. and LIF… and the definition of independence….and also tax deductibility of advice fees .. it goes on and on and on… treasury submissions and white papers photocopied from AMP 1000, success ZIP.
Ben, sort out the CFP / FASEA mess before picking fights with Accountants. I am a CFP, and my view is we work hand in hand with Accountants.
If you don’t sort out the CFP / FASEA mess, then there will be little point to the FPA (as it currently is), and the current leadership will certainly be held to account.
Agreed. The FPA is on steep path to extinction. In its current form it is a dinosaur clinging for life and purpose in the 21st century, it is neither a valid representative voice to government or a publicly trusted brand. To survive the FPA will need to look to the likes of the CA, or CPA or even the AIA for how to re-create themselves as something useful.
Rubbish. The FPA is an extremely worthwhile and valuable Member organisation. It’s just the noisy, irrelevant few who post outlandish comments here who think otherwise. It will be time for you to go soon enough.
extremely worthwhile…..If you work for AMP or the CBA.
Jape, I’ll take that as sarcasm.
I’m young enough to hang around for a while, but old enough to have a few grey hairs. If this is what the FPA Head of Policy is coming out with, it’s embarrassing and completely unprofessional. And the FPA’s track record on CFP and FASEA is a FAIL (so far).
Disclosure. I am an accountant and a planner and a member of the FPA, a CFP in fact. Although after comments like this I sometimes wonder why. I am also a SMSF specialist advisor.
Yes there are no doubt accountants doing the wrong thing as mentioned by McGlashen. He doesn’t say if this was before legislation came in to stop that sort of advice by accountants or not, as once there were only accountants to advice clients, no planners. And yes there are planners who are only interested in churning client’s investments and not worried about the tax impacts or costs, or the provision of any strategy advice.
Yes anonymous, planners do have a statutory requirement to act in the clients best interests. I however seem to remember that planners needed to have this legislated for them before some of them believed they had to operate in the client’s best interest. You also mention that providing accounting services by accountants is a blatant conflict of interest. If that’s what you think the provision of accounting services is, and of course can I ask if you have ever sold a product or taken a commission when dealing with clients, without the clients full and complete understanding of just how much the client was being charged by way of commission and other hidden fees?
So we can pick and pock at each other all we want, there are plenty of skeletons in almost everyone’s closet – the upshot of all of this, is that often the best result for clients is when a well-respected and professional accountant and a well-respected and professional adviser team up to help their mutual client, with the clients best interest being all that is driving both of them in their interactions.
One of these days we might get to that point, Phillip Alexander appears to be lucky and has found his professional pairing. Going forward this is what we should all be striving for. Not everyone is a SMSF expert, so to have the FPA come out and suggest that planners should own this space, shows a complete lack of understanding of just who sits where in this space and serves little or no purpose in the enhancement of the planning profession, or in wellbeing of clients.
Ben, ill informed and definitely biased comment from someone who should know better. Phillip A is on the mark and this would be the position of a majority of planners AND accountants. MY tip for you is to get the FPA working on a submission to rectify their education stuff up, lest your membership numbers will drop and hence your fellow FPA staff jobs, including Dante the master of incorrect information.
Hear hear!
I have an accountant and an adviser for my SMSF. Both do a good job. The accountant does the tax return, tax audit and the admin. The adviser provides advice on the portfolio. My view is collaboration is the key.
Umm, on reading this, hopefully Phil your Accountant doesn’t do both your SMSF tax return AND your SMSF audit…
Pretty concerned about Ben’s comments and obvious lack of knowledge of Accountants SMSF experience. I used to work in an accounting firm as adviser and the accountants were pumping out SMSF every day and giving unlicensed advice and handing out stock market tips on the fly. Seems as though Ben Marshan is in the pockets of the CBA and AMP and is suffering from too many long lunches with them. B[u]en the best outcome for the clients are when planners and accountants work together.[/u] He should be talking about a mutual relationship and educating accountants around the value accountants can gain from working with great planners, not trying to divided occupations. Highlights just how unprofessional the FPA are as a result of payment from product makers like AMP.
Financial planners are infinitely better qualified to advise on SMSFs because they:
– Have a statutory requirement to act in the clients best interest
– Don’t have a blatant conflict of interest as a provider of SMSF accounting services
I might be overly cynical, but there is a poll on the side of this article states 64% of current advisers will leave the industry and not do additional study, but the FPA spokesperson believes Accountants with a Limited Licence to give Limited Advice are going to go to all the efforts to complete post-grad study to retain the licence?
If it was me, I’d be scrapping the limited licence, scrapping the extra study and investing 100% of my focus back into being an Accountant or Business Advisory specialist…
Most accountants have baulked at the first hurdle of doing the basic training required for a limited licence. It is extremely unlikely many of them will do a degree. But then again why should they bother? Everyone knows that ASIC turns a blind eye to accountants.
And to Authors. How ASIC can let Scott Pape of the now best selling book “barefoot investor ‘ this year tell readers to close their SMSF ‘s and invest in one only industry fund HESTA ? with a particular portfolio manager indexed balanced etc .. without seeing a client is beyond me. or is this general advice ??? Or is he not getting paid direct from client ? ( but from the book sales yes)
Surely anyone who went to Ouyen Primary School (LI profile) is ok to do this?