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
Perennial to close three responsible investment funds
Perennial Partners will shutter three responsible investment funds that manage $140 million in combined assets, as they fall short of reaching scale and achieving their investment objectives.
LGT Wealth Management hires five advisers from rival
LGT Wealth Management Australia has expanded its Syndey private client advisers' team with five senior hires from UBS Wealth Management.
MSC Group awarded mandates for natural resources strategy
MSC Group will provide administration capability and trusteeship for a natural resources strategy focusing on the energy sector and select commodities.
Norges Bank slashes exposure to US government bonds
Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM), the investment manager of Norway's sovereign wealth fund, the Government Pension Fund Global, has proposed a major restructuring of the fund's exposure on US government bonds.
Further Reading
Products
Featured Profile

Sarah Shaw
GLOBAL PORTFOLIO MANAGER
4D INFRASTRUCTURE
4D INFRASTRUCTURE
It wasn't confidence that prompted Sarah Shaw to walk away from established investment houses and co-found 4D Infrastructure in 2015. It was something she believes is far more important: courage. By Vinny Vucago.







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.