That is according to Experience Wealth chief executive and leader of The Advice Movement, Steve Crawford, when he was asked about whether the education standards will be good for the industry.
Also on the ifa Show podcast, Mr Crawford spoke about whether sales has a place in financial advice, and whether he considers himself someone who works in a sales industry.
“Absolutely. I don’t have any issues with sales as long as what’s on the packaging is what’s inside. For me, that’s the biggest issue,” he said.
“The industry for too long has sold financial advice as financial advice … whereas, at its core, it is product-based advice with a layer of strategy over the top.
“Until that goes, and all the mechanisms that is protecting that environment in terms of vertical integration of licences, the remuneration payments, grandfathered commissions. Until all of that shit is gone, then we will live in a dirty sales culture.”
Listen to the full episode now.
Yet another of those “the industry is broken and im the only operator doing it right” type folks. This bloke is the height of delusion.
I look forward to the closed minded, pompous, sales-focused financial advisers rapidly leaving this industry and wish Steve Crawford all the best on his immediate retirement!!
Conceited, arrogant, GenX person who shows no respect for the long term older adviser. Steve you do not do yourself any service in making comments such as this, as you are only promoting your own views on how advice is given to your very select age spectrum of potential clients.
This comment comes from an older adviser who is also self-opiniated and a know all but does respect views of others, which you do not.
Your contribution to this whole FASEA debate is really an non-contribution.
There’s a whole generation of younger advisers standing beside Steve on this debate. Newsflash, the world is changing and the boomers are no longer in charge.
Are there? Outside of the XY adviser echochamber there are plenty of Gen Y advisers who are realistic about the characteristics of a sustainable advice industry. As someone that is very much a Gen Y adviser, Steve’s views are incredibly naive and nothing short of arrogant. There are many, many advisers that are providing far better advice than him that will no doubt encouraged to go down the path of bringing forward their retirement for a few years.
Advisers need to wake up and realise FASEA is part of a concerted effort to kill off our industry and funnel all the super towards the industry funds
Proposed questions for FASEA to demonstrate whether they are equipped to define the curriculum and set advising standards:
1. What was the asset allocation of the best performing industry fund and what asset allocation benchmark are they comparing their performance against ?
2. What does attribution analysis confirm about the key driver of performance ?
3. Compare and contract the answers to Q1 and Q2.
4. What do the DALBAR studies teach us about behavioural finance ?
5. What risks do the answers to Q1 and Q2 create ?
6. Who underwrites retirement income if we don’t achieve financial independence in retirement ?
7. Is the answer to Q6 a sustainable solution
8. What experience do you have managing risk and return on clients funds. How do the outcomes you achieved compare to vertical integrated invested solutions ?
9. What experience do you have in running a business ? What profit margin did you achieve and how did you cover your costs to achieve that outcome ?
10. To what extent did your business grow from referrals from existing clients compared to TV and other advertising ?
Based on these answers we will assess whether you have adequate experience and knowledge to be considered for an interview for this role.
Everyone is entitled to express their view however unless these comments are taken out of context, the view expressed by Steve is poorly worded and naive at best, arrogant, rude, inconsiderate and unhelpful at worst.
To swear when being interviewed is really unprofessional. To also say advice is product with a little bit of strategy on top is also a really outdated point of view. We are trying to move away from product based payments all together. These are the types we need out of the industry. Arrogant know it alls.
Most clients I see that have come from an old adviser have a poor set up in something like Colonial First State paying over 2% per annum. They are nearing retirement and I can provide them with a full blown MDA which will protect them in a downturn and take out timing risk for a lesser cost including advice fees. Shows how poor some of the advice was and I firmly believe the new crop of advisers are better than the old crop who only know trailing commissions.
A full blown MDA that protects from a downturn ? Your youthful exuberance is commendable but your nievity and arrogance highlights why you need to be mentored by an experienced mentor.
be nice if u could spell naivety correctly but I guess that goes to emphasise the hubris of ‘experienced mentors’….probably someone who has defined their ‘service’ offering as being able to time markets & deliver superior investment performance.
For the benefit of my education, how does the MDA protect the client in a downturn and take out timing risk?
Guess what junior? You’ve only been investing in bull markets which, by the way, anyone can make money. Do you feel like you’re a world class genius with your MDA solution when markets have been up for the past 10 years?
i hope for the MDA sake the market stays bull or i feel you will learn the hard way how foolish that statement you made is.
Just more of the same ill informed garbage. He has been in the Industry for five minutes and thinks he is a spokesperson for everyone. The FASEA outcomes are going to be disastrous. No new advisers, half going or gone and all that experience will disappear forever.
Spot on Russell.. these overpaid public servants don’t care. It’s when all the people that hang on the back of the planner get affected that they might start to listen.. it really disgusting how this industry is being decimated but who cares!?
Oh and the newbies that pay 2.7 times for books …. Will be down to 1.2 times soon .
Kill the experienced guy’s off and you kill the industry for decades —fools !!!!
Kill the industry, create a profession. Looks like a win to me!
This is the typical and simplistic response from Crawford who thinks that anyone over the age of 50 would be dead wood or stuck in the past….in fact, if you don’t meet his ideal demographic of 30-40 he probably couldn’t understand a word you say.
Crawford has always sounded like a wound up Gen X know all and would be the complete pain in the arse dinner party guest……………not that he would know what a dinner party was !
Just reluctantly listened to the whole IFA recorded interview with Crawford.
As I thought…..a serial self promoter who is simply running with the game that he thinks is going to deliver as much publicity as possible.
A provocateur who wants to gain some kudos for pushing the buttons.
I pity those who had to work with him at AC&L and MLC, when he was clearly in BDM and sales roles pushing product, commissions, targets and production bonuses like every other born again who now struts around telling everyone else they are doing it incorrectly.
Good one Steve….you are a legend…but only in your own mind.
A ‘dirty sales culture’? How pathetic. We just heard from Investment trends, via IFA, that satisfaction levels in financial advice are currently 74%, despite all the negativity and abuse we’ve copped recently. That level of satisfaction is right up alongside the most trusted professions. It’s easy to jump on the bandwagon and slag our profession, but perhaps Crawford and others should speak to our clients before mouthing off, because they seem to be pretty happy with our culture.
Ben, this is the most refreshing thing I have heard in 12 months . From the silent majority of veteran planners
What a load of crap, trail commissions are 50% of the average advise fee industry wide, and as for clients don’t get services when on trail, that is rubbish too, clients walk and terminate you no matter how you are being remunerated if they do not get serviced, so the client on average will pay 40% more $, gee that makes a lot of sense!!!
Who cares , half the advisers soon and see the immediate doubling of the PI insurance premiums !!!! No more grandfathered commissions to look after clients , Lets pay universities another $50k for education , ASIC to charge heaps more to all planners now directly. We need to double fees or get out ….. I’m getting out …. Oh I can’t. I am with AMP no BOLR at the moment as they are struggling and using the old usual ” Compliance ” excuse .
Of course you can get out, walk away or arrange your own non-BOLR sale?! You just dont want to give up BOLR bonanza.
Not a thing happens in this word Until something is sold. Its ALWAYS SALES !! otherwise lets all join the publisc service..
Always a service or product we are a sales world
The ability to sell is a key factor in creating a successful FP business, BUT the delineation is between those selling ‘products’, and those selling ‘advice’. The commercial reality is that clients aren’t used to paying for the advice — until they do, I fear a contraction in either the number of advisers and/or the incomes being derived by advisers is unavoidable.
The typical oversimplistic response to the complex dilemma the industry faces. We need to evaluate education standards, educational content, who is equipped to provide that education and at what cost. We need to debate the pros and cons of vertical integration and the role of advisers providing strategic advice and acting as fund managers and why that is unlikely to be the panacea. Grandfathered commission decisions also need to consider the tax and Centrelink implications for clients and whether clients want to be forced out of arrangements that have served them well for many years.
Loosing investment advisors that have investment IP all at once isn’t good for the industry. A generation of mentors is lost to the younger advisors coming up the ranks.
What is investment IP? One could argue that the way that advisers have sold their investment ‘expertise’ in the past is at odds with the reality and the outcomes delivered to clients.
Understanding investment cycles, risky product structures, the impact of gearing to avoid permanent loss of principal, managing irrational behaviour to avoid locking losses at the bottom of asset class cycle etc. This comes through experience. I started in June 1987 and being there over the cycles is the most valuable thing I own (other than an unblemished reputation and client following).
Mate, you wouldn’t understand investment cycles if one fell on you. Are you pretending to be Kerr, Hamish or Warren? Advising is NOT about the investments (except for avoiding some risks). Advising IS about best in class financial administration of a clients’ affairs: Budgeting & Saving, having enough Insurance, the right Risk profile, tax efficiency, an Estate Plan and so on. If you sell on performance, you’re a goose.
Mate, that stuff is just a ticket to the game. “Understanding investment cycles, not selling at the bottom” is all basic investment & behavioural finance lessons. The harder part is actually managing the clients emotions & irrational desires to do stupid things at the wrong time. That’s got nothing to do with “investment IP”…..
100% agree. Most advisers shouldn’t be attempting to be fund managers. They should stick to strategic asset allocation (SAA) decisions (which aren’t even their views, rather a process to follow regarding rebalancing.
Clients gave us a 74% satisfaction rating, which is a very high figure compared to other professions. So our clients seem pretty happy with the outcomes thanks Jimmy.
it’s not the clients that are unhappy, it’s the public at large, other professionals, academics, lawyers, especially lawyers, the regulators most of whom are lawyers and the politicians, unions, lobbyist et al