Older financial advisers who have not yet completed the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) exam lead the way when it comes to questioning the motives of the FASEA board and the applicability of its code of ethics.
A Money Management survey has revealed that a significant proportion of those advisers who were most critical of FASEA were those with over 20 years in the industry, and who were unlikely to have sat the FASEA adviser examination at this stage.
However, amongst those advisers who had taken the FASEA exam, 94% reported that they had passed.
The age and experience of survey respondents would go some way towards explaining their frustrations with the FASEA regime, particularly recognition of prior learning and other elements.
The survey, which is now closed, has continued to reveal nearly 70% support for the objectives of the FASEA regime, but nearly 97% of respondents stating they have no confidence in the FASEA board.
The survey also revealed that over 90% of respondents believed the Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology, Senator Jane Hume, would be justified in intervening with respect to the FASEA Board.
Comments
How much more evidence does the Minister need to take action on the FASEA Board?
If 97% of respondents are dissatisfied with FASEA, what is the point of splitting the results between different segments? This is a damning statistic. FASEA has never tried to understand the financial planning profession, they have not engaged with us and they have not properly researched the impact of their extreme, draconian measures, which go well beyond what the Government intended. The board needs to resign immediately. We need to start again with a board which includes a majority of practicing financial planners. It is the only way forward.
re practising financial planners - you want the poachers in charge of the hounds? Better for the financial planning professionals to have independent board members to lift the reputation of the financial planning industry from the muck into which it descended.
Any new system upsets the grizzlers.
“CHOICE is no longer a consumer advocacy group, but an activist group, and it is misleading Australians in subjects it knows nothing about,” said White
In fact, White says CHOICE’s own website drives home its lack of credibility.
“Right now, it’s reviewing washing machines, pressure cleaners, smartphones, sanitary pads, kitchen cleaners and high chairs.
“A lead story is about Black Friday shopping tips and [another] asks, ‘Should you buy a highchair from K-mart, Target or Ikea?
“These reviews serve a specific purpose, but I think anyone can see there is a massive difference between a pressure cleaner and a $450,000 mortgage"
https://www.brokernews.com.au/news/breaking-news/the-war-with-choice-wag...
the comments from mortgage brokers is hilarious, i enjoyed it so so much. we all need to band together and vilify and attack choice until they are gone.
they are a nuisance. i wouldn't even trust their reviews of sanitary pads.
Choice has completely lost the plot and are so out of their depth that they even say things like this on their website: -
"Grandfathered' commissions are hidden, ongoing commissions in super, insurance and investment products, charged despite there being no ongoing service"
Sounds to me very much like Industry Super's Fee arrangements for Advice - but it seems Patrick Veyret and Choice have opinions, but I can't seem to find any relevant Education, qualifications, research or relevant experience to back up their claims.
https://www.choice.com.au/money/financial-planning-and-investing/financi...
This statement is a classic example of Choice being more focused on indiscriminate vilification than actually helping consumers. When grandfathered commissions cease there will be hundreds of thousands of consumers who suddenly find they are no longer eligible for the service they currently get from their financial adviser. Most of those people will be older, and unable to afford the true cost of the service they receive. To say there is "no ongoing service" is a deliberate, malevolent lie from an utterly reprehensible organisation.
It is an outrage that an organisation which clearly sees its role as provider persecution, rather than consumer protection, receives government funding via ASIC. It is incomprehensible they are given government power to destroy people's lives through their role on the Boards of FASEA and AFCA.
choice, the home of failed persons. period.
dwell on that choice, you, are the home of the failed.
The issue was that thousands of consumers were getting no financial advice via the 'grandfathered commissions' system. It was easy money for many financial advisors.
Whatever your take, Choice does have street crew in supporting consumers but sadly financial advisors don't. Blaming everyone else is not going to improve the standing of financial advisors in the eyes of Australian consumers of financial products. Thankfully financial advisors do rank above politicians in polls.
Add new comment