Adviser exodus continues

26 June 2020

Over 800 advisers have altogether left the financial planning industry since the start of April, according to the data from Colin Williams, HFS Consulting’s director. 

Williams’ data showed that a net change in adviser numbers stood at 823 on 22 June compared to 679 at the end of the first quarter. 

As of 25 June, AMP Group was still the biggest group by number of advisers (1,907) although AMP Financial Planning saw 164 resignations and made 34 new appointments since the start of the year which saw a net change in advisers’ number of 130. 

Related News:

The total number of adviser resignations for AMP stood at 307 against only 72 new appointments since the start of the year.  

By comparison, the second biggest player IOOF Group which had 1,399 advisers saw 137 resignations and 80 new appointments. 

Following this, NAB/MLC Group jointly lost 145 advisers across all its groups and made new only new 42 appointments bring its total number of advisers to 987 at the end of the period. 

As far as adviser movement by licensee is concerned, Interprac Financial Planning topped the table for the year with a net change of 52 advisers (which included 70 new appointments and 18 resignations), which brought the total number to 320 and translated into a 19.4% growth for the period. 

It was followed by Lifespan Financial Planning and Insight Investment Services which both registered a net change of 33 advisers, bringing their total numbers to 232 and 58 advisers, respectively. 




Recommended for you

Author

Comments

Comments

What idiots would have joined AMP?

Does AMP still offer BOLR? Anything above 1 would still be attractive as that is where Fee books will inevitably drop to with annual opt in.

That is perplexing. I wonder if it's due to AMP forcing some practices to amalgamate and some self employed advisers to become employees. Perhaps they're being counted as "new advisers" when they change status.

BOLR is Dead, but the debt lives on. You still owe AMP 4 times what you bought, but if you want to sell back you get handed an empty bag.

That body (FPA), that is the puppet of large insto's will be struggling.

The same FPA that has just recommended dismantling the licensing system that instos rely on to control advisers?

Yogi, there is actually nothing about FPA in this story. Somehow you seem to find the time and energy to write general FPA hate comments in nearly every article published in MM and IFA.

The current FPA Board and management is not responsible for everything that is wrong in financial advice. Nor are they responsible for most of what FPA has done in the past. Please save the FPA criticism for specific issues where the current team should be doing things differently.

Saying "If only FPA had done XXX, then YYY would never have occurred" helps no-one. Neither does "everyone knows the FPA is beholden to group ZZZ".

What specifically do you want the FPA to do differently right now?

(BTW, I'm certainly not saying the FPA is perfect. I have a list of specific things I'd like them to change. But I'm keen to see your list of proposed changes, rather your constant generalised complaints, historical gripes, and personal insults.)

The fact that FPA could come out with a recommendation to dismantle the current licensing system, (and in doing so alienate large licensees), demonstrates they are quite capable of evolving to better serve the interests of advisers.

Add new comment