<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
	<title>Financial Standard Comments - Ripoll defends FOFA integrity</title>
	<description>A heated panel session between government and industry heavyweights about the FOFA reforms led to calls for a realistic debate and new government promises, with opt-in dominating the discussion.</description>
	<link>https://www.financialstandard.com.au/feed/latest?story=12502285</link>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2011 00:09:48 +1100</lastBuildDate>
	<pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2011 00:09:48 +1100</pubDate>
	<language>en-AU</language>
	<copyright>Copyright 2026 Financial Standard</copyright>
	<ttl>5</ttl>
	<item>
		<title>Comment by Dr Greg Nazvanov CFP? MBA  ()</title>
		<link></link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
<p>A heated panel? many financial planners like myself already moved to a fee-for-service basis while the FOFA debate is continuing. I agree that asset based fees for advice should be prohibited and explain this on my website in length, yet if others want to charge trails and commissions the government should invest in public education rather than leaving it to the industry bodies to argue</p><p><a href="">Reply to article</a></p><p>For original story, <a href="">Click Here.</a></p>
]]></description>
		<dc:creator>Dr Greg Nazvanov CFP? MBA  ()</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2011 00:09:48 +1100</pubDate>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>