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
AustralianSuper bears brunt of complaints: AFCA
|AustralianSuper copped the highest number of complaints in the last six months of 2023 totalling 936, which was nearly three times more than other major super funds like Cbus, Australian Retirement Trust (ART), and Aware Super.
GST rebate changes worsens cost of advice: SMSFA
|Abolishing the rebate for the GST component of adviser fees from July 1 can aggravate the cost of financial advice, according to the SMSF Association (SMSFA).
CSLR makes inaugural payments
|The Compensation Scheme of Last Resort (CSLR) made its first payments to four victims totalling more than $360,000, three of which related to bad financial advice.
Brighter Super awards custody mandate
|Brighter Super has appointed a new custodian, severing its ties with NAB Asset Servicing.
Further Reading
Sponsored by | Know the facts about lifetime annuitiesSaving for a happy retirement is Australia's #1 financial goal. Learn how LifeIncome can deliver more income, certainty, & choice. |
Products
Featured Profile
Jason Huljich
JOINT CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
CENTURIA CAPITAL LIMITED
CENTURIA CAPITAL LIMITED
A single decision can change your life, and that's exactly what Centuria Capital joint chief executive Jason Huljich learned when he came to Australia in the 1990s. Eliza Bavin 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.