With the spotlight of the royal commission being turned onto the financial advice sector since the start of last week, there have been examples of egregious conduct engaged in by both advisers and the institutions they represent. But with political point scoring and industry handwringing taking place the question remains: what action can be taken to clean up the industry and help rid it of the advisers and practices that are contributing to the demoralising perception it has in the minds of the general public?
Just yesterday the main headline coming out of the commission was the example of an AMP adviser who advised his client to consolidate his super to an AMP product, costing his client around 25% of the balance of one account (over $16,000) in exit fees, with no evident benefit to the client in doing so. How can that be allowed to pass?
The government has been called on to apologise for not calling the royal commission sooner and to set up a compensation scheme for the victims of banking misconduct by Bill Shorten, who only had his conversion to the cause a little over a year previously. Talking about such apologies would certainly seem to be political point scoring when the commission has only just started pulling out shocks and revelations and still has months (at least) to run. It will be interesting to see if Shorten calls for compensation should there be any misconduct involving industry super funds when they face the commission in the not too distant future.
While The Treasurer Scott Morrison and his colleague Kelly O’Dwyer do themselves no favours prevaricating when being asked if they were wrong to delay it, their “allies” in the coalition party room, Barnaby Joyce and Tony Abbott, unencumbered by responsibilities of leadership, have said they were wrong to oppose the commission. Abbott has even said the regulators of the financial industry should be sacked and replaced with “more vigilant” people, forgetting it seems that the government under his leadership pulled $120 million from ASIC’s budget in 2014 (which was followed by 200 jobs being lost there), only for the Turnbull led same government to restore the funding in 2016. Back when Tony was the leader, he had his finger on the pulse, emphasising a “greater role for self-regulation instead of state intervention.”
It could be said that ANZ took him by his word. There levels of detection of inappropriate advice went from 191 in 2013 to 2,810 in 2015 before leveling out to 2,499 in 2016. In the last year ANZ have performance managed 71 advisers and about half of those have left. So half are still there and half are out of ANZ. Good for ANZ. Are those who left now free to go to other licensee’s as was the case with a scurrilous westpac adviser who was ripping off clients?
ASIC has also come under criticism from people smarter than Abbott for not taking on the top end of town, as Ian Verrender writes:
“Since the financial crisis, they have forked out more than $1 billion in fines and compensation for their misdeeds. But not one senior banking executive has faced a courtroom for any of this.”
Verrender continues the criticism of ASIC pointing out that it’s database, which houses company and director records earns around $720 million a year, more than twice the regulators budget of $330 million. The important question is asked - Is ASIC's role to provide the Federal Government with revenue or is it an enforcement agency?
So what can be done? How can the industry in particular, financial advice, chart a course through the current miasma and come out doing what it is meant to do - help people chart a course to, and achieve financial security?
At three levels - dodgy advisers must be forced out of the industry, advice firms and their owners must remember they’re in the service business and they should only profit if they’re providing value to the people they serve, and the corporate regulators should use their powers and come down hard on anyone at any level who is bringing the industry into disrepute.
Is it that simple? What do you think?
Comments8
"After over 30 years experience I have yet to discover a 25% exit fee.Some explanation is needed or is this 25% a misnomer for a fund loss."
Peter Foreman 10:20 on 25 Apr 18
"After over 30 years experience I have yet to discover a 25% exit fee.Some explanation is needed or is this 25% a misnomer for a fund loss."
Peter Foreman 10:19 on 25 Apr 18
"I would be interested to know how many of the 71 advisers that were "performance managed" by ANZ last year were compliant and doing the right thing by clients, but simply not achieving the Bank's conflicted sales targets. I think there needs to be greater scrutiny of adviser KPIs and remuneration structures within these institutions to fully understand the issue. If an adviser's success is defined mainly by revenue and Funds Under Management (FUM) generated from specific platforms and/or products, therein lies the conflict that needs to be exposed."
Tiina Takolander 16:50 on 24 Apr 18
"Yes, de-link advice from products. Licencees should not be product makers. Above all, get rid of the APL, and rely on APRA to approve products. Products should be through costed: advisers are not a sales channel."
George Manka 15:28 on 24 Apr 18
"Unlinking product and fees is the only way out of this. Remuneration conflicts are the root of all the problems. If the industry is unsustainable on a fee for service basis, it's a sorry state to be in."
Kym Bailey 15:00 on 24 Apr 18
"Getting adviser out of the industry should follow a process like grading for misconduct in football. Level 1 - misdemeanour (like not following to the letter the best interest duty - but client not worse off) to grade 5 (funnelling your clients money into your own housing investment scheme). ASIC takes all the licensee's internal grading systems and combines them into a uniform code for the industry. Uniform punishments when guilt is established. Results are made public every quarter and stay on record. ASIC given an extra $100/200 million to police this, auditing 10% of advisers per year. Corporates pay for it. Would sort out the problem pretty quickly. You just can't have guys moved on from one licensee to another with no regard for their prior misconduct."
Steven 15:00 on 24 Apr 18
"Well, first impression form most of the clients I have spoken to comes as; 'finally the government wakes up'. Let me tell my peers in the industry, by keeping your advice tailored to individual circumstances and providing regular reviews where the ongoing fee is charged; is the way to conduct your affairs in the industry we are in. Scrutiny or not, take your own sleep test. Can you sleep well after a client meeting where you charged a fee for service and signed up that client for ongoing service? Is it really what the client came to you for? Are your ongoing reviews going to make a positive difference in that client's circumstances? Let go of the cookie cutter approach. Remember, 'Tailored Solutions for Individual Circumstances' is the way to succeed when not only the regulator but your own clients are sceptical of what you do for them. Happy Planning"
Imran Amjad 14:57 on 24 Apr 18
"Agree 100%. 99% of Advisors provide great advice and the reputation of all advisors is being tarnished by the 1%. The issue of conflicted remuneration is one that should also be addressed at an industry wide level. Everyone deserves to be paid but only when one is providing a service."
Darren Layton 14:50 on 24 Apr 18