Under the media microscope
Money Management would like to invite its online readers to take part in the debate about industry issues. Please feel free to add your thoughts to the weekly Editorial.
It is not particularly unusual for financial services companies to hold stakes in major publishing companies. Nor is it unusual for research houses to own or control publishing companies, but it is unusual for a publishing company to own a funds management outfit.
Major Australian metropolitan publisher Fairfax wholly owns InvestSmart, which is marketed as having been created “to provide Australian retail investors with low cost access to quality financial information and products” and is an embedded part of the Fairfax Internet offering, Fairfax Digital.
None of this is new. Fairfax has controlled InvestSmart since 2007. However, financial planners may find the information unsettling in circumstances where they have been receiving some tough treatment at the hands of writers for Fairfax publications.
Just as scrupulous business writers have an obligation to declare their shareholdings in the companies about which they write, the more scrupulous among Fairfax journalists dealing with financial planning have acknowledged the fact that their employer has an interest in InvestSmart. Others have not, which may suggest they simply do not know.
Those who work for reputable publishing organisations generally accept the ethical position that the commercial interests of their employer are kept entirely separate from the manner in which they cover a story. But just as financial planners might be perceived as having been tainted by the acceptance of commissions, so might a journalist expect to be similarly perceived if their employer owns a business that offers financial services in competition with planners.
Some planners might also argue that if a journalist is a member of an industry superannuation fund, they ought declare that interest when writing stories comparing industry funds with retail master trusts.
If the financial planning industry is to be placed under the media microscope, those controlling the focus should be obliged to declare their interests. There is nothing wrong with scrutiny and legitimate criticism, but what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
What are your thoughts?
- Mike Taylor
AUTHOR
Mike Taylor
Recommended for you
Proposed legislative changes to safe harbour duty could result in advisers having reduced professional indemnity costs, a joint submission by seven major licensees said.
With 66 per cent of newly established advice licensees being sole advisers, what are the risks and legal ramifications to consider when taking the plunge into self-licensing?
Despite its popularity, only 1 per cent of financial advisers say they have often discussed cryptocurrency with clients, CoreData said, fuelled by concerns of heavy legal expenses if the product goes wrong.
AFCA and the CSLR have signed a memorandum of understanding as to how they will support an efficient financial services sector via the scheme.
