Hamilton Wealth managing director Will Hamilton began his tenure as a part-time director to FASEA as of yesterday, according to a statement from Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology, Jane Hume.
He fills in a board vacancy left by Mr Rowe after he stepped down from the FASEA board in August to “focus on his increasing workload at CountPlus”.
Mr Hamilton was previously general manager of wealth services at NAB, head of private wealth management at Goldman Sachs JBWere, and managing director and chief executive of Deutsche Securities Asia in Hong Kong.
He also currently serves as the Commonwealth representative on the Professional Standards Council.
“This appointment will continue the high level of skills and experience available to FASEA, to help ensure that the key sectors of our economy are effectively regulated,” Ms Hume said
Mr Hamilton joins a FASEA board filled by chair Catherine Walter, Mark Brimble, Simon Longstaff, Carolyn Bond, Elissa Freeman, Deborah Kent, Louise Lakomy and Catriona Lowe.
I have only met Will once (on an ifa panel) & I think he ticks most boxes for representing advisers on the board – he may be a lot more accommodating to the changes to the profession than others but at least he has skin in the game & understands financial advice (unlike a lot of others on the board). I only wished that someone like him was on the board back in April 2017 & there wouldn’t be as much of a mess as there is now. With most policy changes having already occurred, his influence will be minimal unfortunately. I only hope that he think s of practices with low-middle wealth clientele – not just the high net wealth clientele that he is used to – when making decisions on the board.
Hi Adrian,
thank you. but the low to middle wealth clientele can be served better (more efficiently and at a lower cost) by robo advice, they don’t need a human financial planner. they cannot afford one.
this is part of the problem in the industry, financial planners trying to serve low-middle wealth clients (however well intentioned, i get it, it’s not practical). Let’s leave them to self-service via robo advice. yes, there will be some we will need to mop up afterwards, but that’s how people will learn by making mistakes.
afterwards when they see us, they are going to want to listen very intently aren’t they, they will only do so after they they have cost themselves a couple of hundred grand first.
trust me, we will all be better off, we will get highly engaged clients, earn more, work less, and be more respected without so much bloody interference from government.
Lol what is this… You clearly don’t work in advice if you think this is the case… I can’t even begin I detail the inaccuracies.
maybe check with asic on what they think and good luck.
this is why we need terry mcmaster back. if FPA can have a banned adviser at their national conference why cant we have an ex “EU’d” self proclaimed “genius” of the financial planning industry back.
he would hammer people on the board. what we need is a savage brute like mcmaster not some Pollyanna
In the Dec FASEA exam there was a question about “an AFS licensee sending all clients a new engagement agreement that purported to offer them greater protection but was in fact misleading and designed to protect advisers rather than clients”.
If Terry was appointed to the FASEA Board I suspect whoever wrote that question would be first in line for a hammering!
The majority of advice businesses are small businesess, with the principal provifding advice to people that have real needs and lives. When will they appoint someone not employed but running a biusiness, who actually talks to day to day clietns, who has taken a phone call or two when they need help to make an Insurance claim, or dealing with Centrelink or feel overwhelmed by the complexity created by political announcements. Sure the FASEA board may be great people but not experienced in the types of conversations we have every day.
Deborah Kent, Louise Lakomy and Hamilton are all principal advisers running their own small business
And they have all proved to be worthless in regard to the outcome.
financial planning is a high end activity for the wealthy. you have to have financial (and other ) assets to plan. get it. it’s not for aspiring people. they should use life coaches, personal trainers, etc, become wealthy first so they can avail themselves of my services.
until then they should aspire one day to be able to afford a personal financial planner.
[quote=Hmmm]Apparently he is a strong advocate for the profession, but not a member of any professional (advice) body. i.e. FPA or AFA. [/quote][quote=Hmmm]
for good reason. this is good news indeed. the fewer the leeches that suck on our blood the better. if we can just get rid of the tpb that would be great.
Says m0re about the FPAand AFA than him.
Apparently he is a strong advocate for the profession, but not a member of any professional (advice) body. i.e. FPA or AFA.
that’s a good thing then, lol.
Perhaps he never worked for some product manufacturer who paid his membership fees for him…or signed him up (in the case of the CBA advice scandal) to avoid regulatory penalties. Not being a member of the FPA today indicates you’re a professional. Being a member of the FPA indicates you’re a dinosaur stuck in the 80’s .
that’s 100% correct. honestly, what bloody value does the fpa add to a financial planner, 0.
How about having an adviser that does not exclusively cater to ‘wholesale’ clients (so that they can shirk responsibilities of providing advice to ‘retail’ clients…such as full disclosure).
This is actually a really important point. If this guy only serves wholesale clients, he has no idea of what a normal financial planner has to put up with, there is no full disclosure to clients. He doesn’t have to any of the compliance paperwork for his clients- Statements of advice, Records of Advice and so on. He might be the most experienced planner in the world but its a complete waste of time pretending he can ever represent the interests of typical financial planners. His appointment is a really bad joke on the rest of us.
the real solution is to make anyone over $150,000 wholesale. Would fix a lot of problems
NO. the real solution is for financial planners to accept the reality that going forward it is uneconomic to serve clients who are not wholesale clients. Just serve people with money, they won’t complain, understand the risks they are taking, value your service, be engaged and be able to pay your fee and not complain so much, the reason why we are in this diabolic mess to begin with.
it’s not the financial planners personal problem to improve the accessibility and affordability of advice. that is the domain of legislators. do lawyers moan and complain about being expensive and how people can’t afford their services? NO. they could care less whether people can afford it or not. if they want legal advice they have to pay exorbitant fees, although this is not liked people don’t have a choice and therefore readily accepted.
same thing applies to financial planning or any specialist activity. people need to pay very high fees if they want to obtain my services.
for the life of me i don’t understand why financial planners are fixated on low end (from a financial perspective) clients.
you cannot eat good will. you people working for free is ruining my business because i cost everything out and the fee is high, and people think xyz down the road will do it for free, thank god xyz is going to go broke soon.
You are missing the point. There is a big wave of advisers (generally ex private bank, JBWere, Macquarie, UBS, etc) who flat out refuse to deal with ‘retail clients’ – such as the spouse or children of the primary ‘wholesale’ client (ie; the ones who will eventually inherit the assets). This is not real financial planning. Retail clients are happy to pay fees and are profitable.
financial planning is in a mess because financial planners serve retail clients. they are the ones who least understand and complain the most and are least profitable. if you want to serve them and go broke, go right ahead. up to you.
In fairness, Will is a good choice. He is an adviser, is very well experienced. Good choice (for once). Can’t be worse that the former FPA hack.
Now if the FASEA board could just usher Elmer Fudd out from the CEO role.
…and ditch the Head of Standards who is simply not qualified for the role
Only another ex bank person – this is a joke right ?
If he was appointed by Jane Hume there you go. The blind leading the blind. Interesting her background includes a couple of his previous employers – NAB and Deutsche. Neither the appointer or the appointees at FASEA seem to have experience at the coal face of this industry which is disappointing but at least consistent. Most politicians have little connection, knowledge or experience of and in their portfolios it seems but don’t turn to people who have for guidance.
How about a real/small business adviser. Or maybe someone not from Sydney/Melbourne
There is an imminent skills shortage in the industry. This remains unaddressed.
I agree it is important to include academics, executives etc but there should be some financial adviser representation i would have thought.
and nooooo conflict of interest eh?
As an ex-JBWere adviser I can only say god help us all
Any chance of some regular advisers getting on the board who know a thing or two about financial planning?
Soooo, this is not going to help. This guy appears to be part of the problem. We need real representation from an actual adviser.
How does he appear to be part of problem?