The regulators need to hear from existing clients rather than those who speak on behalf of those who do not receive advice on whether they see value in financial advice reforms, according to the Association of Financial Advisers (AFA).
Speaking at a Parliamentary hearing, the AFA said the “missing voice” was from existing clients and they provided insight into the ongoing advice relationship and were needed to be heard to balance out discussions regarding reforms that focused on the “bad news”.
AFA acting chief executive, Phil Anderson, said: “We had a conversation before with [Labor’s] Dr [Andrew] Leigh about commissions for life insurance. Clients are choosing to pay commissions rather than fees for life insurance yet the activist consumer groups are demanding the end of commissions.
“We also see it in the very high levels of criticism of financial advisers about the way they run their businesses. Those complaints are not coming from existing advisers. In fact, Michael spoke earlier on about the number of complaints against financial advisers that end up at AFCA [Australian Financial Complaints Authority]. It was 900 in the last 12 months. They are not expressing the same level of concern through those processes that the activist consumer groups make.
“So, we are emphasising the fact that there needs to be a better way to hear from existing clients, not those people who tend to speak more on behalf of those who don't get advice.
“That feedback will highlight whether they see value in some of the reforms, the additional bureaucracy and complexity that have been put into the process, whether they are happy to be paying more for those protections than they did before.
“So, we think it's really important that existing clients get a voice in the debates that are going on at the moment.”
Comments
For Gods sake whatever you do, do not ask the end-user what they want, need, or appreciate; don't ask them what they actually use or read; or, what value it may have to them.
Regulators and politicians need to hear directly from all sorts of genuine consumers. They need to stop listening to so called "consumer groups", and cut off their government funding.
"Consumer groups" do not represent the interests of consumers any more. They represent the career aspirations of political activists. Genuine consumer groups were hijacked by these 2nd rate wannabes about 10 years ago. Real consumer interests have been sidelined.
Dear existing financial advice customer,
Would you prefer to pay more or less for the same advice?
We look forward to hearing from you.
Regards,
The regulators
Yes, the consumer groups love to fire off a bunch of torpedos at advisers during secret shopper type activites and report on one off advice provided, picked to pieces on commencement detail. They never bother to ask real, long term clients of the adviser. You know, the people that are forging their own financial security through the professional stewardship and guidance of a trusted adviser. I mean, why do that when your intention is always to find another excuse to belt advisers over the head with more regulation.
I'm so over telling clients what they have to do for the government, despite what they actually want in a mutual agreement between two parties (adviser & client). The conversations are getting exhausting trying to explain the why behind all this crazy nonsense and all they want is the actual service itself and its outcome. God forbid we listen to the people providing and receiving a service, it goes to the ego of the regulators that they somehow know better.
Common sense approach from the AFA, thank you. Totally agree with this and would hopefully think the FPA would get behind it and would be nice if even that looney bunch AIOFP instead of crazy "kill LNP" policies actually became almost normal and supported this.
Forget blaming any sitting gov of the time for our woes, one of our biggest issues and causes of all this over-regulation is simply our self-created mess of internal bickering, politicking and unbendable 'holier than thou' attitudes instead of recognising the diverse approaches are all viable and valuable to the end clients who choose them.
If more groups had such a common sense approach and all sang from the same hymn sheet (as the very unified union super groups do so well), then at least some voices of reason may be heard and not lost in the discordant rabble.
I think the idea is a bit “far reaching “ from my point if view by the AFA Really ! You can virtually tell what the answer will be word for word! “Yes we love the idea of greater protection ! But we’re not gonna pay for it “ Too many consumers look at this advice like buying car or house insurance We want ALL THE BENEFITS at the cheapest price!
Try and tell them “ it does not work like that in this specialist area! They will then ring their Super fund ! And we know how it goes from there !!
Add new comment