In a statement, SMART Compliance principal Brett Walker said MyAdviceCheck would “confirm [advisers’] capacity to meet their Best Interest[s] Duty”.
According to the website, myadvicecheck.com.au is a free service meant to help consumers find a “realiable and ethical adviser” by “building a list of advisers who have submitted themselves to an independent assessment by us on behalf of consumers”.
“Advisers who complete the MyAdviceCheck audit will be able to pay a fee to have the results of that audit downloadable from this website,” the site said, claiming to be an “unbiased and expert analyser of advisers and adviser businesses”.
“MyAdviceCheck asks the questions you don’t want – or know – to ask before entering into a business relationship with an adviser.”
The website pitches itself as a “win/win for consumers and advisers”.
Commenting on the launch, Mr Walker said: “MyAdviceCheck is a simple solution to a problem made all too obvious by the current royal commission into the advice industry.
“Consumers rightly expect their advisers to be acting in their best interests however, sadly, the reality is that this is too often not the case.”
He said advisers could claim to abide by codes of practice, but he pointed to evidence given by FPA chief executive Dante De Gori at the royal commission that demonstrated “many advisers do not themselves understand their duties as fiduciaries who should be acting in the best interests of their clients”.
“At a time when doubts are being openly expressed about the capacity of industry associations like the FPA and AFA to adequately oversee their own members’ compliance, it is time to look at new ways to solve the perennial problem: how do consumers find a financial adviser they can trust?” Mr Walker said.
“The MyAdviceCheck audit service has been devised to overcome a key uncertainty consumers face when selecting an adviser.
“It also exists to help advisers come to grips with this new world of best interests and the fiduciary standards they must now embrace.”
The list is not yet currently available.
A clean audit report is no certainty of good advice. Storm had a perfect score from and ASIC audit done immediately prior to the fiasco that resulted. This looks to be grandstanding by a service provider looking to cash in on the current adverse news and uncertainty. Not my idea of reliable.
Aren’t audits done annually/semi annually? What happens if the ‘adviser gets 1 clean audit and then gets a subsequent bad audit? Does the once clean adviser then get removed from the list? What happens to all the mums and dads who relied on their advice in the meantime? #howmanypplpasseveryauditeverdone
Interesting comment “he pointed to evidence given by FPA chief executive Dante De Gori at the royal commission that demonstrated “many advisers do not themselves understand their duties as fiduciaries who should be acting in the best interests of their clients”
I reckon Danti De Gori dosen’t understand his fiduciary duty owed to his members. Clearly the needs of AMP Financial Planning, CBA and other revenue making ventures are being put first.
directors of companies have a first and foremost duty to their companies so Dante is acting in the best interest of the FPA, which from all the feedback from it’s members (on this site) appears to be not in their best interest
in this sort of scenario, it is not Dante or the FPA’s fault, members should think about joining other bodies – and there are many – see my other post, who do a better job of representing their members interest and who think one of the duties of directors is not just to the company but also extends to its members
in my opinion, those who are blaming Dante, the FPA or the AFA have no one else but themselves to blame first
join another association if you are not happy, no one is going to stop you from leaving Trust me
Who audits the person that audits the auditor? Seriously?
the auditor needs to have a post-graduate degree in financial planning, and finance before they are qualified to be an auditor
Who audits the auditor that audits the auditor that audits the adviser
Funny. Reminds me of a licensee that I was with that was given an enforceable undertaking by ASIC. There was insufficient auditors, auditing the auditors that audited the advisers. Insufficient audit testing of the auditors that audited the auditors. Insufficient testing of the adviser audits and finally the head of the auditors that audited the advisers reported to the head of sales.
I predict the future will be auditing the robots.
then we will need to audit the programmers who program the robots, and then someone will have to audit the auditors who audit the programmers who audit the robots and the circle will continue
No system is perfect. But at the moment most auditing, like most advice, is vertically integrated. The system would be greatly improved if advisers were completely separated from product companies, and auditors were completely separated from advice practices.
Interesting development. Independent compliance audits are almost certainly the way of the future. The RC highlighted that licensee compliance is tainted, with advisers being treated unduly easily or harshly depending on their alignment with the licensee’s commercial interests.
Who audits the auditor to make sure the audits are done properly?
i want to get into compliance business seems very profitable, but probably not for long as there will be an adviser exodus