Advice industry moving into ‘financial aid’

The financial planning industry has been set up like the law industry with the big end of town able to pay for the service and the rest falling to financial aid, like legal aid, a financial planning broker believes.

Connect Financial Services broker, Paul Tynan, said given the level of red tape advisers had to go through and the retrospective education requirements leading to the increasing cost of advice, the industry could only serve the wealthy.

“It's like, the Government, the lobby groups, and the consultants tried to set up advice like law. It’s like advice is a new legal aid. Is that what the endgame is?” he said.

Related News:

Tynan said the conversations around the advice industry involved too many dealer groups, associations, and lobbyist and not enough financial planners that understood how the industry worked.

With large licensees looking towards digital advice to bridge the unmet advice gap for those that could not afford holistic advice, Tynan said it would only bring more corruption.

“With digital advice we’re going to have more shonksters you think about you sitting there on the computer or your phone? How many shonksters are you getting?” he said.

“We're going to have such a big problem and that's the problem ASIC [the Australian Securities and Investments Commission] should be looking at.

“The focus has always been on the poor planner but the biggest problem is going to be cybercrime. The people that are most vulnerable to these attacks are the people that don't have the wealth”

“People could be hiding anywhere and giving advice digitally.”

He said while digital advice could complement holistic advice, it did not help everyone that really needed help as often digital solutions could not help consumers execute actions needed.

“Some offerings allow you to add details such as your insurance, your bank, you get fees from your bank account, and all that. After paying a small subscription it gives you an overall view of your financial situation.

“But It doesn't help if you've got to execute. It can give you a very bare bones saying ‘you should look at your insurance’ but it can't help you execute.”

Recommended for you




But wait Minister for Everything including Nothing, Ms Hume say Robo Advice for the masses is great, dodgy Finfluencers via Instagram that’s all good, people need to make their own choice and take their own responsibility.
But for Real Advice, no people can’t make their own choice, people need protection, massive amounts of BS Regs & Red Tape compliance costs protection.
Hey Ms Hume, you sure have protected 85% of mums & dads from unscrupulous Advisers, because 85% of population can no longer afford Advice, total protection from Advisers.
Great job Ms Hume,
Great job ODwyer
Great job ASIC
Great job AFCA
Great job FARSEA
MR I Hate Advisers FRYDENBERG !!!!

The regulators love the sexy things i.e. robo and climate change.
The hard grind, actually following their brief is not for them.
The winners of all this - industry funds.

So he thinks it was better in the olden days when we had all the things he thinks is going to happen in the his days. Next he will be saying that all food safety standards need to be removed because those standards are just red tape.

To be fair Hedware, I don't think that is what he said at all. You're putting words in his mouth.

I agree with his concerns.

Ah the life of Intra Fund Fees - they just roll in year after year after year. The more members a product gets the more fees. Don't even have to consider the member - just the ones that call ever now and then, and when they do, don't need to consider Red Tape like BID. Imagine that, having to consider if someone should pay their credit card or make a contribution to the Product - it's obvious.
Food safety standards - nice one Hedware.

Now you are saying intrafund fees are causing cybercrime. What next?

Ah Hedware and the ongoing attempted justification of the biggest current rort in Super going.
Intra Fund & General Sales Advice all paid for via
Provided by
And as for disclosure of the Commissions
And how many members get Sales Advice
Quality stuff & massive $$$$$$$$$$$ for those Industry Super Funds that rort it hey Hedware

Do you think anybody in an industry super fund is going to engage a professional financial adviser with all these rantings going on? Just looks very unprofessional.

Maybe it hasn't occurred to you that there are people in industry super funds who have engaged a professional financial advisor because there is more to finances than just superannuation. Maybe that's why they dont avail themselves to intra fund advice. Maybe they see the value in outside opinion.

Time to get over this obsession on intra fund advice or you will wear out the caps lock on your keyboard.

Maybe it hasn't occurred to you Hedware that people in union funds who do engage a professional adviser end up paying twice for advice. Once to the professional (by choice), and once to the union fund (compulsorily).

That's the whole problem with intra fund advice fees you just don't seem to get. While it may be a valuable low cost service for the small number of members who use it, it is a fee for no service for the majority. It is not an integral part of the super fund operating costs that can't be unbundled. It is an extra service the fund chooses to provide inhouse, and chooses to increase fees for all members in order to fund. It is deceptive, unethical, and contrary to community expectations. If Australia had any legitimate consumer associations they would be up in arms about it.

What does it matter to you that some people are not using a service? It happens everywhere. Are you making good use of the armed services for which you are paying tax? Surely you would be expecting them to invade the head offices of industry super funds for you.
People in industry funds do use professional financial advisors - this is good. Also good that there are some financial advisors who are happy to provide services to members of industry super funds as well as to those in retail funds.

Some great points Hedware about some super fund members getting Real Advice, we provide such Advice to some of our clients who have Industry Super and their wider finances too.
The points of concern are Hedware:
1) Industry Super has advertised strongly for 20 years against Adviser commissions but somehow now Industry Super is fine to charge HIDDEN COMMISSIONS to every Industry Super member.
2) ISA Members who chose to get Real Advice should be able to Opt out of HIDDEN COMMISSIONS charged to every single ISA member.
3) Industry Super should have to charge the actual members that get Advice, provide proper AFSL compliant Advice and get Fee / Commission consent from the member who has received that Advice.
4) Industry Super are just as bad as the Banks & AMP in their massive HIDDEN COMMISSIONS for NO SERVICE rorts.
How you can accept & defend Industry Super being just as dodgy and rorting members super for no service is beyond hypocritical Hedware.
Enjoy the rort while it lasts ISA.
Hopefully members will one day be reimbursed for being ripped off.

Thanks for your reply
1. Intra fund advice is not hidden. I gather that is openly advertised to members of super funds.
2. Intra fund advice is not a commission because no one in the super fund giving this sort of service gets a commission - might get a salary but a salary is not remuneration by commission
3. There's no crime in somebody not availing themselves to a service on offer
4. I believe, and hope, there is a vast difference between intra fund advice and the advice given by a professional financial advisor.
5. Some members of industry funds have professional financial advisors. Some dont want a financial advisor and maybe never will and they dont care what you think about intra fund advice.
6. The Anti-Intra Fund Advice Syndrome is apparently growing to pandemic levels.

Imagine if food safety standards only applied to healthy foods. And imagine if those standards were so over the top, they forced suppliers to comply with extra regulations that did nothing to improve food safety, but significantly added to the cost of that food. And imagine if junk food was completely ignored by the safety regulators, so that it became a much cheaper alternative and its quality fell even further. And imagine if the regulators simultaneously conducted a vilification campaign against health food providers, which provided even further encouragement for consumers to switch to junk food instead. Would any of that be a good outcome?

Of course not. It would be disastrous. Just as the equivalent approach in financial services regulation is becoming an absolute disaster for consumers.

About 3-4 years too late these comments. Which would make perfect sense given Mr Tynan sells FP Businesses and those Advisers exiting would have had to plan well in advance. The direction needs to be turned around NOW, it can't wait. Concessions, and a reduction in regulatory red tape need to be introduced for Face to Face personalized advice given by FASEA accredited, ASIC Licensed, TPB registered "Advisers" opposed trying to give even more carve outs to Sales staff working in an AwareSuper/ Hesta call Centre saying salary sacrifice 20 times a day.

i wanna be a porn star.

Any preferred genre?

Add new comment