Add a comment24 Comments

1. Transparent | 16 February, 2010 at 06:41 PM
   Just make all commission transparent. Just give the client a statement every year with how much commission has been deducted and paid. Have the client decide if they want it rebated/refunded on a monthly basis. Stop talking and take some action. So many stats, so many views, so little action. Maybe the ISN should provide the industry solution not just comment.
2. GD | 16 February, 2010 at 07:08 AM
   Hi Mike, I am far from a fan of the industry fund people and was making a more general statement. I, along with many here have saved or made significant money for clients which would not have been possible without advice and got well paid as a result. As I have posted elsewhere my greatest concern for the ongoing viability of the industry is to ensure that inducement is not available to do anything other than act in the best interest of the clients. Its that simple (but not easy to implement). As for these surveys, I don't think they should be ignored, even if the questions are somewhat "loaded" in favour of a particular outcome.
3. Mike Brown | 14 February, 2010 at 09:17 PM
   Qs for David (or Jeremy, or GD??)How many of the applicants had actually considered obtaining advice from a financial planner i.e. were they actually "consumers of financial planning"? And is it possible to obtain the scripting around the questions? Surely ISN didn't go through all that expense for Newspoll research to ask just 7 questions?
4. GD | 13 February, 2010 at 04:27 AM
   I don't think anyone expects advisors, to work for free, icluding Jeremy but I do not recall anyone really knocking down one of his arguments that effectively. Must be driving you all mad
5. Matt | 12 February, 2010 at 01:18 PM
   Jeremy Smith accusing someone else of clutching at straws? Now I've seen everything. Please answer my question Jeremy.
6. Michael | 12 February, 2010 at 10:56 AM
   Are you serious Jeremy? Maybe you should go back to your homework and let the grown ups have a serious discussion. I have better things to do.
7. Bob | 11 February, 2010 at 06:18 PM
   Jeremy Smith - do you have a job? If so, get back to work and stop wasting everyone elses time.
8. Jeremy Smith | 11 February, 2010 at 05:17 PM
   Michael – just accept it – you asked for proof and I provided it. You are now clutching at straws which is frankly embarrassing. Oh, and I’m still waiting for proof of your 99% comment re me given you ”have no need for any spin/denial techniques” - don’t worry though, I know an empty tin when I see one. Whether it’s buying a car or getting financial advice – I like to know the track record of the product or service before I buy. As such, consumers have a right to know which planners are charging a commission in exchange for no service rendered. You clearly disagree – now why would that be I wonder?
9. Michael | 11 February, 2010 at 03:53 PM
   Oh Sorry Jeremy, I didn't realise you had a watertight statistic like 'much' to back you up. So it’s not actually 60% then, it’s ‘much’. Can somebody enlighten me on exactly how much is ‘much’? And I have no need for any spin/denial techniques Jeremy, unlike you so it seems. In regards to your other ignorant comment, clients do not need to know which advisers have clients on their books who are not being serviced…they just need to ensure that they are getting the service they agreed to pay for, and if they aren’t they have the right to change advisers at any time.
10. Matt | 11 February, 2010 at 01:45 PM
    JS - What about the fee for service advisers who charge ongoing fees while not servicing their clients? Should fee for service advisers be banned aswell? Should financial advisers work for free?!
11. Greg | 11 February, 2010 at 10:00 AM
    I have checked the report JS quotes-on the outset it seems accurate-but there are more flaws to the report (and questions to be raised) than Jeremy's argument! I would hardly say JS can draw simplified conclusions on this report-that is pretty ignorant and inaccurate. But I would expect nothing less.
12. Jeremy Smith | 11 February, 2010 at 09:58 AM
    From the article “Furthermore, much of these trail commissions continue to be generated from the accounts of clients who aren't being regularly serviced.” No – clearly no link there at all Michael. Note: must work harder on your spin/denial techniques. Headache – the matter is not simple as the consumer has no way of identifying which of the commission-based advisers are the ones not servicing their clients.
13. Headache | 11 February, 2010 at 08:44 AM
    JS - The article you keep referring to states advisers on average are not regularly servicing 60% of their clients. Does not state the payment arrangements between those clients and the advisers. The simple matter is, across any industry, if you are not happy with the service you are getting you find someone else.
14. Matt | 10 February, 2010 at 05:48 PM
    Jeremy Smith, you consistently make me giggle with your comparisons between apples (financial planners) and oranges (car salesmen). I will give you a more apt comparison; car salesmen and industry funds (oranges and oranges!).
15. Michael | 10 February, 2010 at 05:08 PM
    Jeremy, the article you reference states that commissions account for 35% of revenue, and also that 40% of clients on the books of advisers are being regularly serviced. There was no statistic connecting the 2 to state what percentage of clients are not being serviced and continuing to pay a commission. Many of our clients pay an upfront fee for an SOA and choose not to pay for ongoing servicing beyond that. So, do you have any other research you would like to manipulate today?
16. Jeremy Smith | 10 February, 2010 at 03:41 PM
    Headache, I think you will find that the research indicated that they were not as good at meeting the needs of high net worth clients. That is fundamentally different to not even bothering to provide the service the client is paying for. The criticisms (and very weak at that) leveled against one solitary fee for service financial planning organisation as a rebuttal for the proven grand scale rip off that is occurring in the commissioned industry, is a desperate clutching of straws the likes we have not witnessed before. I do agree that there are some good commissioned based advisers out there who actually do the work they are paid to do – but what about the other 60%? Would you recommend your mum buy a brand of car that had a 60% chance of the brakes not working? Plenty would for the right commission no doubt!
17. Headache | 10 February, 2010 at 12:08 PM
    JS - There was another survey shown where IFFPs who charge a upfront fee and don't service their clients as efficiently as their retail counterparts. Remember JS you have good advisers and bad advisers on both sides, it is up to the client to shop around for what he wants.
18. Jeremy Smith | 10 February, 2010 at 11:57 AM
    Just for you Michael: http://www.moneymanagement.com.au/article/Death-of-trail-commissions-creates-revenue-black-hole/509210.aspx. As I said, research proves that 60% of consumers paying a commission are not getting the service they are paying for. I will leave the fabrication of statistics to people like you Michael – you seem more than capable of that based on your last comment.
19. Michael | 10 February, 2010 at 11:02 AM
    Research PROVES that a staggering 99% of readers of Money Management believe that Jeremy Smith should not quote statistics without also quoting their source, lest he be PROVEN to make up statistics to suit himself. Then again, he could always get his industry fund to 'commission' a survey and prove whatever he needs them to prove this week.
20. Jeremy Smith | 9 February, 2010 at 05:48 PM
    When you have a “profession” that charges consumers a commission in exchange for which no service is rendered (research proves this happens to a staggering 60% of commission paying consumers) is it any wonder industry funds won’t refer to commissioned based advisers. When the commissioned industry cleans up its act then just maybe they might start seeing referrals from industry funds.
21. Matt | 9 February, 2010 at 04:34 PM
    News flash! According to dairy farmers, milk is good! In other news, David Whiteley and his ISN goons have been asleep for 12 months and believe it is still 2009.
22. Chris Grenfell | 9 February, 2010 at 11:14 AM
    What a surprise. A survey organised by the Industry Super Network coming to the conclusion that advisers being paid commissions compromises the quality of financial planning advice. Talk about flogging a dead horse. And who paid for this latest survey? The members of industry super funds, of course. They may not pay commissions to financial advisers, but they certainly pay through the nose for surveys so that David Whiteley can keep on making the same point over and over, the same point over and over, the same point over and over .....
23. Ian | 9 February, 2010 at 10:52 AM
    If the Industry Funds were serious about their members receiving comprehensive advice from qualified Financial Planners acting in the best interests of their clients, they would allow their members to work with the Planner of their choice, and be able to deduct the advice fees from the member's accounts.
24. Headache | 9 February, 2010 at 10:21 AM
    Blah Blah Blah = More waste of members money. Keep flogging the dead horse...