Add new comment

Mark7.....I can only assume you are referring to Risk Advisers receiving remuneration via commission ?
I am genuinely confused at to why you would be genuinely confused !!
Firstly, because Risk Advisers are bound by the Best Interest Duty.
Secondly, because the receipt of remuneration via a commission model is legislatively compliant.
Thirdly, the impact of the LIF changes to the remuneration models are currently in progress.
Lastly, every consumer should be offered a choice of options as to how they pay for advice and services.
Prescribing a singular payment option for advice is ridiculous and promoted by those individuals who have an ideological and philosophical hatred of commission payment because they believe it labels them with a brand that doesn't sit within their own self image.
For your information, I am an ex-Teacher who has spent the last 30 years in Financial Services and I would totally support the fact that older and experienced teachers whilst they must keep their professional development up to date to fully understand the latest research and learning strategies they should not be asked to completely re-train or re-qualify in order to satisfy a
" one size fits all " approach if they are 50 plus years or older.
They must be competent, knowledgeable, compliant and effective just as any professional would be expected to be so.
However, there is an agenda at play from FASEA and that is a strategic, purposeful and deliberate cleansing of older
advisers from financial services.
This will result in a massive loss of intellectual and experiential capital based on years of working with a diverse range of clients.
Financial Advice is first and foremost a people business. It always has been.
Without an experienced depth of understanding about human emotion, empathy, perception and judgement, the rest of the advice process is flawed and transactional at best.
This is not to say that some younger advisers may also naturally have the skills and ability to utilise these qualities, but to deliberately force the hand of so many good, older people in a very short space of time will result in an adverse impact to the consumer. It will not result in a benefit and it will not eradicate unethical behaviour or poor advice.