Banks’ wealth exits haven't ended product promoting

Banks divesting their wealth businesses has not led to a wider variety of products being recommended to customers but, rather, it has led to bank staff promoting the products of other parties with whom their employers have a relationship, according to the Finance Sector Union (FSU).

What is more the union has claimed that planners working within small and medium advice businesses are just as likely to be guilty of misconduct as their counterparts employed by the banks.

In a submission filed with Senate Economics Committee, the FSU acknowledged that the provision of prudent financial advice in the customers’ best interest was a matter of community and national importance.

Related News:

However, it added: “As was revealed in the financial advice round of hearings during the Recent Royal Commission, the misconduct in the financial advice industry was not limited to the large entities, but also arose in small and medium advice businesses”.

“Rather than focusing in where advice is being provided, the focus must be on improving the ethical standards and standing of the financial advice industry,” it said. “In this context the Union does not believe that vertical integration is an unsurmountable problem. Indeed, a focus on vertical integration may obscure the observation that similar issues arise as a result of exclusive and preferred provider contractual relationships.”

“The Union’s observation is that divestment of wealth businesses has not led to a wider variety of products being recommended to customers. Rather, there has been a corresponding increase in relationships between banks, insurers and financial advice businesses such that staff are required to promote products of third parties in the same way as they previously promoted products issued by their employer or its subsidiaries,” the submission said.

The FSU said it therefore did not believe that the solution to conflicts that arise from vertical integration was to ban such structures or separate the entities.

It said that, rather, the solutions involved a range of measures including prohibiting conflicted remuneration defined as all variable or contingent pay, eliminating the general advice exception under the Future of Financial Advice provisions and avoiding incentives that promote sale of a product or class of product.




Recommended for you

Author

Comments

Comments

Can the FSU give us examples of the small to medium businesses that were identified in the RC? If not can someone please sue them! Every day there are these blanket statements about us, once again to try to make someone elses selfish point. Sick and tired of these parasites , yes they are parasites, same as the AIST, FPA, and the ISA and the FSC...the whole lot of them. Feed them to the sharks and start again.

so what. Businesses still need to make money. You dont think all the Union linked businesses dont have partnership deals with other suppliers. The real stupidity is that Banks et al have to always had to fake have a wide APL - why don't they just say, we promote X product only. If you come to us, that is what you get... I wonder if this was told and advertised upfront if ASIC would be able to slap businesses down.

“Rather than focusing in where advice is being provided, the focus must be on improving the ethical standards and standing of the financial advice industry,”

These statements are getting to me. With all the ethics and conflicts training we've been given over the years i'm often shaking my head at other environments i'm exposed to (occupations, professions, clubs) where ethics and conflicts aren't up the the standard i'm expected to be at.

Four Corners last night highlighted that even the academic world has the same challenges and they are determining our ethics pathway. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-06/universities-lowering-english-sta...

Add new comment