The new accreditation – to be known as the ‘Certainty Adviser’ – which is in the process of gaining a certification mark from the ACCC is aimed at helping move the industry towards a new “generation” of advice providers.
Advisers who join must meet three key criteria, including serving the “public good”. They can also be aligned or non-aligned.
In addition, they must not receive any revenue, or accept any financial benefit, from a product or service provider, and they must adopt the fee and disclosure guidelines set out in the Accounting Professional and Ethical Standards Board’s originally proposed APES 230 standard.
The launch of the accreditation comes as Mr Stackpool moves to rebrand his business, Strategic Consulting and Training (SCAT), to Certainty Advice Group.
Mr Stackpool said the new name and designation reflect the group’s “sharper focus” on partnering with advisers who specialise in the removal of financial uncertainty and its expanded mission to make advice “irresistible”.
“We are continuing SCAT’s work of helping advisers build productive, scalable and profitable practices only we have much bolder and ambitious goals,” he said.
“We want to reinvent advice and educate consumers about what advice should look like and ultimately deliver. In most cases, it will bear little resemblance to what they’re likely to experience today.
“So far, we are happy with the consumer reaction. Since the launch of my financial advice book for consumers last year, we’re now getting 2,000 hits per month on the book site. We introduce relevant enquiries to our certified advisers as part of our approach,” Mr Stackpool said.
Mr Stackpool plans to attract more than 100 ‘Certainty Advisers’ Australia-wide.
Any accreditation that comes with a trademark symbol should be seen for what it is?
Complete Rubbish.
Another self interest group in it for the money and not their to support the industry
[quote name=”Jim”]So they would rather charge the little guy fees rather than take income from the multi billion dollar insurance companies……[/quote]
Jim (of the comment), the multi billion dollar insurance companies get the money from who exactly?
The little guy always pays. Every last cent that comes out of the little guy’s pocket, flows through the jaws of the multi-national and processed, via the bowels of BDM land, into tasty little “you don’t pay me it’s free!” commission nuggets, that fall into the mouths of expectant, hungry advisers.
At least if a fee is direct, he has a fighting chance, and he can end it if the advice is rubbish. If it’s all wrapped up in commission fuelled pseudo advice nonsense, what chance does the little guy have?
The advice may also become “inaccessible” to most people. I think we’re over-reacting just a touch. Branding yourself as some sort of demi-god in financial planning because you are removed from all product might not mean a lot to most the public. Some people might think it’s important.
Jim,
I agree that commissions still play a role in providing risk advice but for clients will to pay a fee for risk they can absolutely benefit from wound down premiums etc. Certainly isn’t unethical to charge a straight fee.
“We want to reinvent advice and educate consumers about what advice should look like and ultimately deliver. In most cases, it will bear little resemblance to what they’re likely to experience today.”
Such unmitigated arrogance. Good luck to any of you that drink Jim’s cool aid.
So they would rather charge the little guy fees rather than take income from the multi billion dollar insurance companies……