At an event in Sydney on Wednesday to commemorate the appointment of former Synchron adviser Matthew Wallis as the licensee’s new NSW state manager, Synchron chair Michael Harrison said the industry should not take unwarranted government intervention lying down.
“Right now we have a monumental challenge in this industry ,” Mr Harrison said.
“We have LIF, FASEA, the new Australian Financial Complaints Authority – which will probably have an impact on PI premiums – and a political class that simply doesn’t understand our industry and has a blinkered approach.
“We could sit down and accept all this or we can adapt and prepare. We need to be prepared to stand up for ourselves.”
Synchron has organised upcoming meetings with Minister for Revenue and Financial Services Kelly O’Dwyer and other influential policymakers with the intention of explaining the impact of government reforms on financial and risk advisers and their clients, the independent chair and former Zurich executive revealed.
In the past year the licensee has met with former prime minister Tony Abbott, foreign minister Julie Bishop, finance minister Mathias Cormann and speaker of the House of Representatives Tony Smith, in an effort to advocate on behalf of its advisers and the broader industry.
“I’m not hopeful that it will change the whole situation but at least they will know where we stand,” he said.
Adopting a historical analysis, Mr Harrison reminded guests of the Whitlam government’s decision to end tax-deductibility of life insurance, comparing it to the current state of affairs in financial services.
“I remember going to a meeting and half the [life agents] said they would leave the industry because of it and they did,” he said.
“But ever since then the industry has grown, things have gotten better. Sometimes you just have to take a step back while the storm passes by.
The dealer group’s five-year and ultimately successful battle with the Victorian State Revenue Office over what it argued was an unfair assessment – which cost Synchron $750,000 in legal fees – confirmed to the company that some fights are worth fighting, even where difficult or expensive.
“Sometimes you need to take a position and hold that position,” he said.
In a passionate speech following Mr Harrison’s address, Synchron director Don Trapnell reiterated that he is willing to lobby government on behalf of advisers in the absence of other industry leadership.
“You need to get angry if it deserves getting angry. You don’t just say ‘its going to go away’,” Mr Trapnell said.
“We need to stand in front of the minister and MPs and harangue them. We need to speak to product providers and other licensees. We need to talk about it, debate and engage.”
He said he stands by comments published by ifa this week that the FASEA requirements may “kill” the risk advice specialisation, arguing that debate is needed to ensure the viability of the industry he has been involved in for 50 years.
Aside from the lobbying agenda, the Synchron directors said their main priority is helping authorised representatives prepare for the new mandatory standards regime.
“Some will need education help and might be studying for years, some are going to need a succession plan and unfortunately others will need an exit plan,” Mr Harrison said.
Good work Don. I 100% agree that these changes will kill the Risk Specialist for reasons already mentioned (it’s happening already).
To anonymous (if that’s your real name), I’ve been advocating for similar understanding of the risk only adviser position. What is the issue?
Financial planner doing “Holistic Financial Planning” should do a degree on everything. A risk only adviser doing a degree on all areas of financial planning to only sell risk is ridiculous. It’s like telling a year 12 maths teacher, you need to do a degree in English, history, geography and science to teach math. Madness.
Before you shout that I should not get away without doing further education, I agree. Risk only advisers should do a risk specialist qualification which ensures we are 100% up to speed on all things risk insurance including the implications of risk advice on SMSF’s, Super, Business, Estate Planning……………
Give me that and I’ll start it today. Tell me to learn “retirement social security and retirement income streams” so I can continue to sell life insurance only and I’m out. Every risk adviser I’ve spoken to says the same thing.
BTW, if you want to do “holistic financial planning (including risk recommendation)” you should do a degree and a risk specialist qualification as well.
Synchron please let every adviser in the country know how to join you in this fight against this choking red tape. You will have over 25,000 supporters instantly.
Its infuriating that our so called professional associations have been standing on the sidelines all these years while the red tape keeps being rolled out ever so longer. These groups claim to advocate on advisers behalf with government and policy makers yet its a single independant licensee that is doing all their work. SHAME SHAME SHAME
One of the many, many reasons I chose Synchron as my licensee, on top of providing a world class service and great community. They go above and beyond advocating for our industry.
I wouldn’t have my dealer group fees going anywhere else.
[size=20px]Vote 1 Don “Trappy” Trapnell for PM.[/size]
Couldn’t happen. He is way to honest and actually cares about the people he serves.
Financial Planners have been stabbed in the back and abandoned by the FPA for years. The FPA and other associations have handled this with appalling self interest. They fail to explain how education will solve future scandals and frauds, they fail to address the real issues and fail to admit that out of every single fraud and scandal the advisers involved all had the correct education standards, all had FPA hurdles met and most had degrees or CPA qualifications. The problem isn’t education people, it’s plain and simply morals, ethics and lack of monitoring of the advice given before it becomes a problem. There is no degree for this, there is no course to do. So FPA, stop wasting my time, stop ruining this industry and get out there and provide real solutions for the very real problems that has nothing to do with education or buying your courses. You are a joke FPA and absolute JOKE.
Agree entirely and well said.
should add that it is always the “employed” planners (bank planners come to mind) who are conflicted by achieving their sales targets. When you own your business you have skin in the game – there is more value in a long term client relationship than ripping someone off for short term sales target profit.. think about that. At end of the day.. the consumer will end up paying more or worst still, fewer planners means fewer clients getting quality service and advice.
The over regulated starting point is asphyxiating topped of with Dean Sanders education revolution that has been devised without reference to the real world (outside academia) The lack of consultation and the refusal to dump the 10 year rule and enter into a grandfathering proposal will turn a professional sector into an experience light “ghost ship”.
you do realise that Sanders & FASEA are only implementing what they have been given by the government? go shout at the clouds, it’ll make as much sense and difference
Not quite. The legislation requires all advisers to have a degree. FASEA have gone well beyond this to require all advisers to have a recently completely financial planning degree. (I know some people have said that’s not FASEA’s intention. But it is the implication of FASEA’s document, and FASEA has done nothing to rectify it.)
But Synchron is certainly wasting their time if they think advisers with no degree will get an exemption just because they have been successfully selling life insurance for 30 years. That’s never going to happen.
You say “just because they have been successfully selling life insurance for 30 years” like it is a trifling flash in the pan bad thing. You are obviously not an adviser. No adviser would denigrate fellow advisers in an off-handed fashion like that if they care d or respected their fellow advisers. I submit that if a risk adviser, who consults, protects and looks out for their precious client’s best interests (not just “selling” as you carelessly, cunningly and negatively put it) goes for 30 years without a complaint or issue then he has to be doing something right. No amount of unrelated uni degree education will help him do his job better.
.
Synchron can and WILL make a difference, you mark my words and I CHALLENGE you to demonstrate otherwise against the combined power of Mike Harrison and Don Trapnell. These are no lightweights in our game and you probably should know better for doubting their potential effectiveness on our behalf. WELL DONE SYNCHRON FOR TAKING A STAND WHILE OTHERS TALK!! Thank you Mike and Don. (I am NOT part of Synchron but admire those with conviction)
It is blindingly clear that the lobbying work done by other associations/industry bodies has been incredibly underwhelming. Whilst I don’t 100% agree with everything Don Trapnell says, I really applaud his advocacy for his fellow advisers/the industry.
With Synchron having now organised a meeting with Kelly O’Dwyer, have they put out the call to (or have a petition/register that can be utilised by) others in the industry to show their support? I know this shouldn’t be up to Synchron/Trapnell to do, but there’s not exactly a long line of others willing to get their hands dirty..
Agree with the overall sentiment of fighting over regulation. What a pity none of the adviser associations have done so. Congratulations to Synchron for stepping up.
However I can’t agree that FASEA will be responsible for killing life risk specialisation. Compulsory superannuation has been doing that progressively over time. With insurance now so closely intertwined with superannuation, tax, and retirement savings issues, pure insurance specialists are no longer appropriate. It’s partly why the insurance associations merged and renamed as the AFA.
To be effective in their broader agenda Synchron will need to choose their battles. Lobbying for FASEA exemption for insurance specialists is a waste of Synchron’s efforts, which could be better deployed on other fronts.
Sorry, but I must challenge. Exactly who do you refer to when you say “the insurance ASSOCIATIONS merged and renamed as AFA”. I joined the then LUA in 1988 in my first year, to the chagrin of my MLC sales manager, aka ” Mr 14%”. Eventually, the LUA federated and became ALA, then AFA. For all intents and purposes, its the same body. The problem with the AFA is they have forgotten who created them – risk advisers, and seek to compete with the FPA. Both the AFA and the FPA waived through ( ‘not playing shot here, sir “) LIF and FASEA, and sought out “professional ” body status, seduced by the compulsion requiring advisers to be members of a “professional ” body.
Both bodies, in their differing ways, can NEVER be regarded as “professional ” while they seek, and take, contributions from product manufacturers, either from vertically integrated AFSLs making it compulsory for their advisers to be a member of either organization, or “sponsoring “conferences etc..
And FASEA will not be the only contributor to the demise of self-employed advisers( risk and investment ) , but it will sit on the top of that already high pile of excrement known as compliance and LIF.
You are correct about one thing – there’s no point attacking Deen Sanders. A Liberal government introduced the absurd control measure known as “education standards ” for advisers. Sanders is just interpreting the legislation.
WOW. well said. A shame you are “Anonymous” as I’d really like to know the name of someone who cuts to the chase so clearly as you have. Bloody well said! You’ve obviously been around the block and I, for one, have learned a bit from you today. I was still wet behind the ears when you were joining the LUA! Cheers.
Don Trapnell, in the absence of leadership in the lobbying space (or at best, its there yet we’re not aware of it) I back you. I am a proponent of an industry wide exam and it should be set to reflect what our advice capabilities are – ie a risk specialist does not need to know about investment but does need to know about tax and estate planning to some extent.
Can you gather enough actual support for the pollies to listen? That is the test. If you can, then you have the basis of a better group than either AFA or FPA which is not a bad thing. Its the getting united bit that is hard…. we Aussies are too laid back, sometimes.
Grandfathering the degree for advisers who have demonstrable CPD for say 10yrs and who passes the exam of course, would make sense regardless of any other qualifications. It might be enough to keep valuable experience in our industry.
Congratulations on your stand. Unfortunately it’s a little like trying to enhance the perception of how Financial Planners are viewed by consumers. It doesn’t matter how hard you work on it and how good a job is done by advisers as long as regulators keep enforcing legislation which gives the consumer the idea that we are all crooks nothing will ever change. It’s a bit like blowing up a balloon with a hole in it – it doesn’t matter how hard and for how long you try to blow it up you still end up in the same or worse position. Here’s hoping that we can find a balloon with no hole in it. Keep on blowing!
well done Synchron – this is what we need – some good old fashioned common sense. The problem we have is too many bureaucrats with no industry knowledge and experience making our industry over complicated. Most of these so-called experts wouldn’t know what is actually involved in how we provide service and advice. Keep up the fight
Thank God for a voice of reason! Keep up the great work Don & Michael.
Please make it very public if you decide to start a professional member’s group to replace the FPA or AFA.