AMP Financial Planning lost its status as the single biggest financial planning group in Australia by adviser number at the end of last year with its number of advisers falling to 815, almost 3% less than the current largest group NTAA-owned flat-based fee model practice SMSF Advisers, according to data from HFS Consulting.
By comparison, in August last year AMP FP for the first time in years posted a drop in adviser numbers to below 1,000 for and, at the start of 2019, the firm had close to 1,400 advisers under its wings.
The company was also a consistent winner for the past five years in the longest-running annual snapshot of the leading advice groups the Money Management TOP Financial Planning Groups Survey.
According to the survey, in 2015 AMP FP had over 1,700 active authorised representatives who were financial planners and since then the firm had continued to lose advisers, recording a fall to 1,650 and 1,500 planners in 2016 and 2017, respectively.
Source: HFS Consulting
At the same time, as at the end of December, 2020, AMP Group managed to maintain its dominant position and had jointly 1,598 advisers on its books against IOOF, which came second with 1,249 planners operating under its umbrella.
Excluding National Tax and Accountants Association (NTAA), MLC Group ended the year as the third largest financial planning licence by adviser numbers with 676 and was closely followed by Easton Group who had 652 planners.
The biggest independent financial planning group, Synchron, came fourth and had more than 500 advisers at the end of December.
Source: HFS Consulting
Comments
The dealer group that used to have the most conflicted advice model in the industry has been toppled by the dealer group that now has the most conflicted advice model in the industry.
SMSFs have become the dominant vehicle for conflicted, overpriced, inappropriate advice. ASIC will probably wake up to this fact in about 15 years, once they have eradicated the last remnants of legitimate professional advice.
No mate, Industry Super has a much more conflicted - better described as controlled, model of advice.
Got any data to back that baseless claim, SMSFs allow people to control their costs no more admin fees no more platform fees, if your balance is over $300,000 the total fees are cheaper with an SMSF than even the lowest cost super fund, more control over what you can invest in.
Where as if you go to your typical financial planner they stick you with a platform to make their life easier for reporting and the clients are stuck paying ridiculous fees with no added benefit to themselves, why advisers stick to platforms is beyond my understanding it just boils down to laziness makes their life easier and lack of research ever heard of super funds that you can pick your own investments and no need for a platform or if it’s right for you an SMSF in which you can have a stockbrokerage account and utilise mFund to get access to unlisted fund managers or just apply to the fund manager themselves.
How is there any conflict of interest with an SMSF?
There’s plenty of conflicts of interest when I go see a financial planner who works for a financial institution or their licensee is a financial institution, suddenly the client is put in that financial institutions super fund/platform/products.
Wake up to the real world or go back to being an insurance salesman
That was like reading a note dug up from a time capsule buried in the 1990s! Did you fax it in?
SMSF's are rubbish, Industry funds are rubbish and a ponzi scheme, retail funds are rubbish and conflicted, Independent advisers are not independent, ASIC are corrupt, FPA are rubbish, Banks are corrupt - have I missed anything in my summary of Moneymanagement comments?
Add new comment