Advisers must change mindset in face of FoFABY MARK SMITH | MONDAY, 19 NOV 2012 12:10PMThe biggest challenge for financial planners in the face of the Future of Financial Advice (FoFA) reforms is to change their mindset from one of selling products to that of providing a quality service for consumers, according to MyAdivser's Philippa Sheehan. |
Editor's Choice
Value versus growth: Market expectations in 2024
|In 2022, concerns about rising interest rates and the Russia-Ukraine war brought fundamentals back into focus, creating numerous opportunities for value investing to generate alpha. Then transitioning to the first half of 2023, that period saw significant performance for growth stocks. What's next?
Aware Super appoints general manager, strategy and transformation
|The $175 billion superannuation fund has recruited from Deloitte for the newly created role.
Jinding funds management division spun off
|The funds management division of Australian property group Jinding has launched as its own entity.
CFA Society Australia launches
|CFA Society Australia has been launched following the amalgamation of three local CFA Societies.
Products
Featured Profile
Robert De Dominicis
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
GBST HOLDINGS LIMITED
GBST HOLDINGS LIMITED
It was during a family sojourn to the seaside town of Pescara, Italy, Rob DeDominicis first laid eyes on what would become the harbinger of his future. Andrew McKean writes.
It seems that 2 schools of thoughts are emerging:
1. "Financial Planning" - sales people, cannot be professionals, cannot be independent, should not provide advice, sell products of banks, industry funds, insurance companies, no soft dollars - ok to receive commissions and rebates, with full disclosure
2. "Financial Advisers" - professionals providing un-biased advice, must be independent, not aligned, banks / institutions cannot be shareholders, fee-for-service only, no commissions, no rebates, no soft dollars & full disclosure on fees.
From a "client's perspective" if they seek professional advice, then they expect that advice to be "free from bias" & "independent". The value is in the advice itself and a professional cannot put themselves in a position where an actual or perceived conflict of interest may or may not arise? this is a fundamental principle of a profession. A professional cannot put themselves in a position where they might be influenced or persuaded to recommend a product that pays a higher commission, a fund manager pays a higher % of FUM or a platform provider paying a bigger rebate.
Is there room for both options? E.g. some Dealer Groups still claim to be "100% Fee-for-Service" but charge of "% of FUM" and receive platform rebates, yet claim to be independent. As a client this is absolutely misleading & deceptive and even contrary to FPA Code of Conduct and ASIC guidelines. Have these Directors also forgotten about the Trade Practices Act? The industry really must forget about how the industry currently works, get back to basics & define how clients expect it should work for the benefit of all concerned.
Clients deserve good outcomes and professionals deserve to be fairly paid for work and the advice they provide...just like EVERY other Profession. Perhaps Dealer Groups and Financial Advisers that don't acknowledge this...don't deserve to exist.