Financial Standard Comments - Financial Planners want level playing field on commissions

Comment by Jarad ()

Jarad () — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 13:17:10 +1000

Don't worry about brokers. What about Real Estate Agents.

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by Mike ()

Mike () — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 13:31:50 +1000

Seems very logical. This is what happens when you tamper with things. What about other occupations which should all be made to prepare a statement of advice such as trades people. In the end we will all be spending time adhereing to red tape. Cheers

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by Simon ()

Simon () — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 13:38:44 +1000

What Jarad said. Real Estate Agents are able to do all sorts of things that we were banned from doing years ago

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by Buzz ()

Buzz () — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 13:54:34 +1000

Stockbrokers receive brokearge based on the trade value. I bet this doesn't change and is probably one of the reasons financial advisers are opting for direct equities as opposed to managed funds. Client is probably better off buying direct equities at say 1.0% brokerage as there are no ongoing fees. At least you receive all the dividends and franking credits and do not lose out from poor fund manager investment decisions.
The playing field is not level and never will be whilst there is a concerted effort to stop finacial advisers making money. I think the finacial advisory industry should look at charging fees for the "worry factor". I know I dont stop thinking about the clients when I knock off for the day!

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by Mike ()

Mike () — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 14:01:55 +1000

The laws must be equal for all however FOFA is a big mistake and will be very damaging to our nation. The financial services industry is a conduit for providing capital for the healthy operation of our economy. Without due compensation for effort, access to capital will be severely restricted, new projects will not get off the ground and existing businesses will fail.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by Todd ()

Todd () — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 14:05:52 +1000

The Real Estate agents are now even prompting SMSF, Running seminars they are even sending promotional material to Financial Planners that they dont even know, followed by a random phone call to see if one is going to attend.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by TJ from the south coast ()

TJ from the south coast () — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 14:06:33 +1000

Stockbrokers simply buy and sell shares for clients based on their risk profile. If they dont have the clients on wrap they dont get on-going trails. Therefore they need to trade to make thier money. Therefore they are offering a fee for service already, and its tax deductable for the client due to changing the cost base. Its the firms that need regulating not the individual brokers, they make the most out of flogging floats.
If we were to think about this fairly the government needs to look at ANY industry where clients can lose money due to bad advice.
Be it real estate,financial planning , art investments , collectables, if someone says buy this you will make money they need to be held to account if the client loses money, or at least let the client know the downside risk - but seriously where does it all end?
Red tape - more red tape = less time servicing clients = less time helping clients meet goals = less wealth for australia = more tax for us to replace lost savings !
Lets not fight with each other , lets fight against unfair spouting from certian groups trying to tarnish our names.
TJ from the south coast.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by Jason M ()

Jason M () — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 14:07:01 +1000

Adds some weight towards the term Financial Planner being restricted under law. Under ASX rules my understanding is that the term stock broker is restricted.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by James ()

James () — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 14:10:48 +1000

FOFA is appearing more and more about a blatant attempt to shut financial planners out of superannuation in order to bolster the FUM of the ISFN. If commissions generated out of a conflict of interest was a major concern then stock brokers, real estate agents, finance brokers, accountants, doctors and even industry funds would be included in this legislation.
It really grates with me that industry funds are exempted from FOFA in terms of commission payments for insurance!

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by Poor Sufferer of Fools ()

Poor Sufferer of Fools () — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 14:37:53 +1000

Well,well,well. Another well thought out policy from our Canberra Comrades. Now if you've got a business and want to raise some capital you've got Buckleys. Great idea if you want to stamp out capitalism, why just rip it out by the roots.
If the stockbrokers go out on strike over a pay cut I reckon we should too. What about the whole financial services sector going on strike for a week or two and we'll see how Mr. Swan's economic miracle holds up. Of course there will always be the scabs down at ISN to keep the super system going, won't there?
LOL LOL LOL LOL

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by Buzz ()

Buzz () — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 14:38:17 +1000

Wake Up! Finacial Advisers make too much money. They must be shut down. Smart advisers are switching to direct equities where 1.0% Brokerage is the accepted norm with no ongoing manangement fee. Much cheaper for the client and totally transparent. If you combine a fee for service plus brokerage on shares then everyone is happy - and you can blame "the market" if something falls in value. You can also place a stop loss on the holding and look after the client.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by Adam ()

Adam () — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 14:53:04 +1000

It seems that FOFA is having its intended effect on our industry by turning us all against each other. Wouldn't it be better to work together as one instead of saying "well, what about them?" This infighting makes real estate agents look professional.
At the very least it will make it easier to get along when we're all working next to each other in an industry fund call centre.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by Sandgroper ()

Sandgroper () — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 14:55:42 +1000

FOFA is just marxist bs. Not much different to a ban on live meat exports. Super Funds will just get even more weighting to property & not shares in the future, as commission payments for direct property come under State Laws, not the Federal Govt, and CAN NOT be banned. The solution is to tell the marxist Union Super Funds to sod off & get a real job, instead of being subsidised with monopolistic default super payments, without having to justify an performance for it. In a few years people will realise how woeful FOFA really was. Better still, just SAY YES to an ELECTION NOW.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by Aaron ()

Aaron () — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 14:57:02 +1000

Well let us not forget Mortgage Brokers, who are paid trail brokerage for the life of the loan. How often do they review their clients? not yearly.
The Gillard-Brown goverment continues to dig a deeper hole for itself and it will take down Australian companies with it.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by Ringo ()

Ringo () — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 16:48:00 +1000

@Buzz: "Finacial Advisers make too much money" - Ha! They wish - most planners that I know makea modest living - look up the ads online for Financial Planners and see how many are earning more than $150k - virtually none!
If it was as easy as people reckon it is, everyone would do it. If they made as much money as people say they do, people would be lining up to get into the industry - just look at law or medicine.
Leave the poor bastards alone - given what I've seen my friends in the industry put up with, they can keep it - I'll keep on selling real estate.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by Tj from the south coast ()

Tj from the south coast () — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 18:21:05 +1000

Buzz - we should be shut down?
I studied for 5 years before becoming an adviser and have had 15 years experience in the industry.
I contact all my clients at least every 6 months and talk about everything from how thier business is going to how the kids are.
Then we speak about what they want to retire on and how to get there, and what other goals they have such as holidays, and purchases.
This situation will be reviewed for the next 20 years and investments need to be changed as risk profiles and goals do.
They may have debt that needs to be covered as well, so we need to also discuss this.
( This happens every 6 months )
My clients pay 1.00 per annum or less for a well diversified portfolio that is based on shares and also international investments that you cannot access through the stockmarket.
Its called reducing risk by diversification.
So everyone should buy equities directly. Just pay 1.00% upfront and bing bam boom, your retirement is guaranteed.
Wonderful - why hasnt anyone else thought of it.
TJ from the south coast.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by degrees of seperation ()

degrees of seperation () — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 14:55:43 +1000

The current issue with Financial Advice in this country is the disparity between good quality advisers and advisers that simply do not meet basic educational requirements for today's consumers. that covers all clients young, pre retiree and retirees.
Consumers including myself are happy to pay for quality advice as i think most people are young or old but for god sake let us all wake up and realise that the industry is moving forwards to promoting a better minimium standard of adivsor and or advice.
Maybe FOFA is slighly overboard but again we have advisors in the industry that are CFP qualified that would not have done any further study or kept up with Industry trends for 20 years. I mean it is these advisers that should be put under scrutiny first, Imagine a suregeon that had not kept up with new procedures over the years? the client would be at their mercy as they are with advisers that also don't keep up with CHANGE!!!
Embrace CHANGE don't be frightened of it.
As for Buzz and his comments, well hopefully you don't give advice and don't take your own.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.