The financial adviser exam requirements outlined by the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) would give rise to a “cull” of a large percentage of the financial adviser population, according to the Association of Financial Advisers (AFA).
In a submission filed with the FASEA responding to its proposals around the financial adviser examination, the AFA said it had never been its expectation “that the Professional Standards regime was the vehicle for a ‘cull’ of a large percentage of the financial adviser population”.
“It should also be recognised that very few, if any, courses and certainly no other professions are solely reliant on one single exam as the sole determinant of a professional’s ability to continue to operate,” the submission said.
The AFA submission has argued that the FASEA process “should always have been a journey to assist advisers to ensure that they meet the standards expected in the future”.
“In reality, it appears to have become the complete opposite,” it said.
“The requirements set out in this consultation paper will, if they are implemented as proposed, achieve exactly that – a cull of many advisers,” the AFA submission said. “This exam will remove many good advisers who for one reason or another will struggle to pass such a challenging exam.”
“Put simply, if it was a four-hour closed book exam with no preparation materials and a limit of two resits, even the very best financial advisers will be highly challenged and anxious,” it said.
“One of the key skills of being a good financial adviser is the ability to put yourself in the shoes of your client and to understand their situation from their perspective. The same needs to apply in this case for the benefit of those impacted financial advisers, in that those setting the standards and those who are commenting on these standards, need to view these requirements from the perspective of those particular groups of advisers who will be most threatened by this exam requirement,” the submission said.
It said that among those most threatened were advisers who find examinations difficult or suffer anxiety and “those financial advisers in their 60’s and 70’s who have a passion for their profession and for their clients, however have not completed an exam for many years and will undoubtedly struggle when put into this position”.
Comments
I understand the need for the exam as we want to make sure the Financial Planners providing advice are at least competent while they obtain their Post Grad however, in the real work no Financial Planner provides advice with a closed book. They use all the resources available to them to provide quality advice.
'even the very best financial advisers will be highly challenged and anxious'
I agree with this 100%. I am a young adviser with a Masters Degree in Financial Planning, with a HD average, plus other qualifications. I have performed well in exams my whole life. But I have never had a gun held to my head, where I must pass an exam to save my career. It is utterly cruel. I am so nervous it is making me sick. It is affecting my work. It is affecting my family. So I can only imagine how others are feeling.
If this isn't a call to action then what is? What are you going to do about it other than comment here and be herded to the slaughter? Your anxiety is telling you something that is true but you don't want to face it.
I don't think it's all that bad. Worst case scenario you fail the first exam then understand what level of knowledge/knowledge areas are required and you prepare better for second attempt. Sure it's added strain in an already stressful career but we'll get through!!
Imagine the pressure and stress when you get to the 3rd exam. Mortgages, kids in schools, a business you own.
Yes that would be very stressful. I have the kids, mortgages and own business.
Many of the points raised by the AFA are valid, particularly the need for preparation such as dummy exam questions, but the purpose of the test should not be lost in the conversation. The purpose is to cull some adviser, specifically those that don't know what they need to know.
If the aim was to develop a test that everyone passed there is no point in the test. We will have the current situation where it is too easy for someone to claim they are a financial adviser/planner and be let loose on the public.
I could be wrong, but my understanding is grading of exams typically sees 20% of participants fail. When I did the CFP transition exams around 50% were failed. It's not supposed to be easy.
If an adviser can't pass the exam once in three attempts then it's time for them to find their true calling, because its not financial planning.
Jason, not sure if your overconfidence about your own security is based on reasonable assumptions or not. What if the exam is subtly testing for empathy - you might then be part of the 20%.
HD's honesty about his sense of vulnerability to the unknown strikes me as being a more desirable personal quality in a planner than blind bravado!
There's no overconfidence, bravado or presumption in my comments Long Term. If I'm not up to it I should be pushed out. As a collective and as individuals we need to accept this is the harsh reality we now face from setting the benchmark too low for too long. I'll be doing plenty of preparation for whatever we are presented with.
Financial planning necessitates constant learning. If an adviser thinks they already know everything, they have actually just started to fall behind. Doing something for a long time doesn't mean it is being done well. Every client is a mini exam and you should aim for 100% each time. If the aim is mostly right or the same solution gets rolled out to every client then that's simply not good enough.
Not just anyone should be allowed to claim expertise they don't possess or rely on "experience" and advise others on important life decisions, with potentially huge implications.
If you think setting the benchmark low for those already in the industry is the way to go you are ignoring the fact that it is the people already in the industry that are causing the problems, as the Royal Commission is highlighting. As the Royal Commission is also highlighting, it is not just a few bad apples.
The process and journey buzz words are going to get rolled out a lot and not everyone is going to survive this journey. I'll be doing what I can to make sure I do and I don't expect it to be easy. If you want it easy go do something else.
Jason what idiotic comments. So you're saying that a planner that does incredibly great ethical client focused advice currently, who has a successful business and the clients love and trust him, but who may not be able to recall the exact bs regulation number or quote like scripture the exact phrasing of some inane over the top ASIC rule, should be cast aside?
You sound exactly like the type of guy we should be guarding against in our industry, A twerp so ignorant and inexperienced that he thinks he has all the answers.
Joey Joe your comments on here suggest you wouldn't know ethics if it hit you in the face and clearly don't understand the issue is about competence, not whether the adviser cares or not. Maybe you'll better understand the issue of competence if you ever encounter a well meaning and caring, but incompetent, surgeon. That's if you survive it.
Given you are so experienced I'm sure that like me you've met plenty of people over time that have been delivered substandard advice and overcharged for the privilege by supposedly ethical, caring and successful advisers.
Ignorant is a good word to describe your thinking that no change is the solution. You've really thought that through haven't you.
Okay so you have established you're not from a law background with your non-linear thinking and no addressing the points raised but instead an inept attempt to re-use my own points.
So what part about 'incredibly great ethical client focused advice' can possibly be reduced to 'well meaning'? Even your high school English teacher would fail you (again, most likely) on that attempt, along with your "I'm not ignorant, you are nah nah" retort - so mature and articulate, bravo!
Oh, and as for a wider appreciation of the issues, sonny, I bet my PA who handles correspondence and meeting notes from my everyday business discussions across the breadth of Australia has more idea than you do, from what you've thus far displayed with your baby tantrum and idiotic comments.
'Ethics' & 'Competence' in your world may be critiqued by 'passing an exam', but look it up, it's actually truly measured and tested in the practice of executing the skill itself on a daily basis. Clearly, your lack of knowing this shows you've never been a high level sports person either.
How about you grow up and grow a set, and specifically address my points regarding how the profession, clients or the public will benefit from the exclusion of an existing experienced planner who provides 'incredibly great ethical client focused advice'?
I look forward to a sane, logical non-tantrum reply addressing the points with facts when you've put your big boy pants on and can respond on the same level with the rest of us grown ups.
You are clearly well suited to the online world Joey Joe where its easy to resort to name calling and bullying tactics as a distraction and to make you feel better about yourself.
Your inability to logically argue that competence should not be a tested prerequisite to operate in the advice industry is disappointing. I thought a big balled super intelligent man like you would have realised that many advisers view of what is ethical and client focused is firstly subjective and as the RC is highlighting distorted from the broad community's view of ethical and client focused.
The only thing adult about you is obviously your age. Haven't been called Sonny for a long time.
Spot on, Jason. You can see from the dialogue a lot of 'Joey Joes' who have had it wayyyy too easy for too long with their PA's and paraplanners doing everything are worried they arent up to it.
Its a simple exam on what you do for a living each and every day.... Seriously if you cant pass what are you doing calling yourself a professional.
People respect the CFA as most people fail Level 1 the first time. This exam wont be 5% as difficult either.
Agree - Joey Jones seems to be not up to the changes going on in the financial advice industry and may well be incapable of being in the industry post the impact of the Royal Commission. There's a Federal election coming up and both major parties will be wanting to be ringing in the change. He seems bent on supporting the nefarious practices exposed by the Royal Commission and seems to believe that it is the industry funds doings, despite those funds coming off shiny in comparison to their for-profit mates. He seems unable to accept that very ethical behaviours have been perpetrated on citizens using the financial services products and services. He seems to view competence and ethical behaviour as not being justified in the financial advice industry.
When posts become nasty personal attacks, then you know the poster has no credibility or substance.
Wow, Mr Inept himself who runs from answering my very direct and simple questions accuses me of not being straightforward or hidden agendas? Hilarious lefty aren't you, and no stranger to mud slinging or personal attacks either, but that's fine if it is your side doing it only, correct? I am betting you're simply an ISA stooge or employed by them probably for what they try to pass as a planner who has such an insecurity that he has to defend ISA at every turn. Likewise, if that is your calling and you exist after the test, good on you, I am sure the ISA need your type of salesperson in the future.
As I have said this entire article comments, I am simply asking how it is in anyone's interests if a planner that does incredibly great ethical client focused advice currently is kicked out over an exam on reg's he or she can't quote offhand. But I am betting like every other time you and your mates (or pseudonyms) will be small dicked and not answer that at all.
Wow again my point proven, you are now utterly pathetic in not addressing the question posed, but that's typical of your ilk like hed etc.
But you havent made a point. All you have said is that you have been a planner for ages so suddenly shouldnt have to change with the times to provide better consumer outcomes.
The fossils with 'successful' businesses are predominately those that benefited from the broken and conflicted industry we are trying to leave behind. That's not an accomplishment.. You're a roadblock gradually being shifted.
And again you simply don't answer a simple query. Too scared or vested interest in not wanting that answer?
Loving this as it shows if anyone should be concerned at an examination time, clearly with your lack of competence at comprehension skills, it will be you.
Joey Joe, You'd fail the exam on grammar alone. what a goose.
I am an adviser of 31-years experience with an MBA (Investments & Finance) as well as other related qualifications. The exam process is harsh, unreasonable and unprecedented given the context. How impractical that the education qualifications (my existing are considered irrelevant) are not required until 2024 but the exam needs to be passed by 2021 - where else is the exam conducted before the course? Further, how does one study for a topic like "Applied Ethical and Professional Reasonings and Communicaitons?" I'm finding it difficult to find reference material that could be considered AQF7 standard. FASEA may produce a suggested reading list - well let's have it!
Given that 70 percent of the content to be examined relates to ethics, corporations law and "know your client" practices, I am struggling to see why it would be such an issue if you practice what you preach. If you are uncomfortable in sitting an exam in a manner that mirrors what happens at any tertiary institution twice per year, then that might say something about your education and training in the first place. Personally, I have no problem with a clean out of the industry and if that means I have to go through a bit more study and examination pain to know all of my colleagues are up-to-standard, then I have no issue. Many of us remember being scoffed at when we went to University when degrees first mooted twenty years ago. You had plenty of warning this was coming, plenty of warning.
Correct, its just all self-preservation. If someone can't pass an exam on what will be what they do each and every day, they shouldn't be in the industry anyways. Ethics makes up a lot of it which is simply common sense.
Please direct me to text books and other reference material relating to ethics for financial advisers suitable to study for an exam at AQF7 level. What reference materials will you be studying?
Hey Darren. I don't know yet. I think FASEA have indicated that they are working to deliver that kind of stuff shortly ? Given that a degree program of study typically requires you to sit 4 exams at the end of a semester, then one exam shouldn't be the end of the world. There's many times I have had to sit an exam after having a month or two to study up. I mean; ethics above reproach, intimate financial advice law and behavioural finance is all the stuff I am told "Experienced financial advisers" deliver everyday. On that basis, this exam should be a doddle. Don't you think ?
Hey Nick, they have stated that they won't be producing any form of dummy questions or learning material. One of the quoted areas that will make up the exam is "THE CORPORATIONS ACT - SPECIFICALLY CHAPTER 7", so they could ask you anything from the entire corps act or if they are kind then they will narrow it down to the 500 odd pages that make up chapter 7, and that's just one part of the exam.
I don't see the reasoning behind them not providing learning materials other than to cull Adviser numbers.
What about the Risk Only Adviser, are they going to need to know how to answer retirement planning questions or portfolio management questions? what about the Adviser that is a highly skilled communicator, who is able to get clients to open up about their true goals and objectives but they don't actual write or research any advice, they do the client facing stuff?
People compare this exam to university exams of which you normally do one for each subject, that's 8 per year, 24 or 32 over the course of a degree, for subjects that you have specifically chosen because they interest you - this is one exam that has the same weight as all of those together. Fair bit of pressure, particularly if you haven't studied for 30 years.
Thaks Nick. Wouldn't hurt you to read Fasea's release concering the exam. They do not intend to release any reference or subject material at all. They are undecided if they will even release a suggested reading list. We are completely in the dark as to what we are suppose to study. As I said previously, how do you study a topic such as Applied Ethics and Professional Reasoning and Communication? What text books do we buy? Google the topic and not a lot comes up. This is 25% of the exam and I don't have a clue as to how to prepare for it. Not sure 'doddle' is the term I would use. Remember, the exam is at Grad Diploma standard, not some industry based test on what we do everyday. The number of advisers that will be culled is truly frightening.
You don’t study units within a degree because they appeal. You study them because you have to, to complete the requirements of the degree. I think many of you are jumping the gun. Let’s see what comes out over the next few weeks. To be honest, I’m not sure a cull is such a bad thing. I come across so much advice that can easily be shown to be benefiting the adviser rather than the consumer. The fact is that the ROyal commission has only showcased a couple of incidents. The complaints lodged with the RC across all sectors are now nearing 8,000. Recently, ASIC’s surveillance of SMSF advice showed that 90% of the advice was flawed in some way. Much of that, associated with advisers. (And accountants who now, many are also advisers). If you think there is any chance that there will be a back-down of any sort by the government, regulators, or FASEA then I’m sorry to say, there’s NO chance. I have counselled a number of advisers to commence/plan their exit strategies. The argument about how badly off consumers will be with a decline of 50% of advisers is falling on deaf ears. Government, regulators and consumers will tell you that based on recent events, they see no value and indeed detriment, in what many advisers are doing. They would see a reduction as a good thing, to be replaced with people who meet community expectations. Many consumers are genuinely shocked when the current education system is explained to them.
Clearly another young twerp with plenty of acedemic experience, little life experience and no brains. Your stupendously ignorant answer give away your lack of either experience, or if you're going to argue you've been around for a while, then clearly success as you obviously do not own your own large business. Go grow up.
But what EXACTLY is coming Nick? Does your comfort change if political leadership changes and they have a different interpretation of what was set in play? What happens when they review again in several years time and they take this momentum a step further, are you still comfortable then? You are also comparing what they are proposing with what you experienced at Uni when it is clearly not the same. The only comparable aspect is the sitting of an exam, not the curriculum, syllabus, tutoring, mentoring, research assets - it is just here is an exam on subjectively determined material with no post exam review process and a subjective assessment all of which can be "tweaked" at any time post implementation by people who you have no say in with regard to their posting. To me it is comments like this that illustrate how easy it is to manipulate groups of otherwise highly educated intelligent people. The always someone like you that says "I have no problem with it" while a small number of your colleagues get taken away to the "gulag". Then a few more, then a few more, then ........ who determines where it starts and stops. And I don't like who I see that has started this and I don't know who is going to determine when it stops.
AFA does not get it. AFA does not understand that a professional body needs have high professional standards for its members to deliver professional services and to be acknowledged as professionals by the average citizen. Why does AFA keep going for the lowest common denominator in its submissions?
Here we go with the self-declared representative of the "oppressed". Key group identifier spotted "the average citizen". Thanks for your input comrade Hedware. How much is left on your HELP debt for your humanities degree or was it union funded?
You've declared the 'oppressed' as the ripped off clients and the honest financial planners of the financial planning industry. That's not being cynical.
Got you picked haven't I mate. You just clearly manipulated what I said and I have clearly struck a nerve - thanks for your posts. Keep them coming.
I've got a lovely picture of straw man here but I don't seem to be able to upload it into the comment section.
Comrade Hedware is an ISA stooge. I have challenged him several times with sincere questions regarding his research and providing opportunity to factually justify his stance, but instead he obfuscates and throws attacks elsewhere. Clearly a sign of either a mentally weak person or else some one with very apparent conflicted self interests in commenting on this forum.
Hedware I don't think AFA want to be a professional association. They're more about being an industry association and there is nothing wrong with an association representing advisers... and advisers need that. But we do need a professional body and advisers don't even recognize that. On the other side is the FPA that wants to be a professional association, tosses the word "professional" around loosely, but is more about representing large institutions, even gets paid from them and is more about feathering their own nest. It's needs a complete overall.
...and here comes clown #2 with the false nomer 'Anne Davies' (cue the 'circus polka' song)
and your point is? Joey Joe. wtf?
Hedware does not get it. Hedware does not understand that a mutually beneficial body needs to have mutually beneficial standards for all stakeholders to deliver clearly defined mutually agreed parameters of engagement by transparent means and association for all parties to any prescribed interaction between any citizen. Why does Hedware keep throwing out simplistic deconstructionist propaganda designed purely to undermine the established paradigm?
big difference in the pressure of passing an "entry test" compared to "stay in business test".
Plenty of us have had a negative experience on entry tests - didn't make the grade ok - you then look for something else or satisfy yourself with the "next level down job" eg didn't make the SAS, always plenty of regular military roles. Its another to have met all requirements and even more to commence in a profession and then despite any evidence to the contrary be asked to sit an arbitrary exam
I reckon 1 in 50 clients I meet ask about my quals or even care when I point them out in the FSG, They wont care when I flash a fancy FASEA certificate in their face either.
This, the LIF, FASEA, ASIC, The FSC O'Dwyer and even the FPA and AFA have effectively culled the industry already so you had better get used to it. There will be less than 50% of advisers left in this industry in less than 6 years and only the rich will be able to afford financial advice. Most dealerships and the FPA and AFA won't exist in 6 years.
Agree - I am already drafting a letter to my clients to say that whatever comes out of the RC the cost of providing compliant and bullet proof advice (ie which protects me from ASIC) will rise materially and that my fee scales will rise accordingly. Whatever good recs come from the RC there will be a myriad of unintended consequences.
I think the best solution that would keep all but the fin services secotr happy would be a single federal govt pension scheme - ie your 9.5% goes into that - no ISF, no corporate funds, no SMSF, no Bank funds. advice not required - you get an aged based investment profile and some guaranteed minimum return (govt underwritten and Market returns in good years) If you wan to contribute more than 9.5% that is where SMSF, ISF and banks can make an offering. We can all sink or swim together ….
The advisors I know, many who are in their early 50s, are all dealing with FASEA in a calmer, considered manner than some of the advisors on this forum who appear to be completely losing their perspective. I get it. It's cruel, unfair, stressful and time consuming. But like anything, once you chunk down each 'hurdle' into component parts, FASEA, even in its worst form, should be manageable for the majority of financial advisors. Cynics be damned, let's push through this (as we always do). Onwards and upwards, bring it on.
No doubt the Exam will be purely based on FASEA guess work like every other component of their work so far. I believe FASEA are the ones that need an exam to explain to us their understanding of the advice industry, because so far they have failed at every turn to understand what advisers actually do on a day-to-day basis as have ASIC. They simply don't get it.
I may be cynical, but I believe this whole game is an orchestrated power grab by Union based INDUSTRY funds.These guys are the 'white collar mafia' of our age. I must say they have done a brilliant job in ripping the heart out of their competition with the help of our brilliant elected members.
They used to use big beefy STAND OVER men back in the day, now they just use our dopey politicians. They have moved with the times, progressed, GOOD on THEM!!
WINNERS = "INDUSTRY FUNDS CARVED OUT OF FOFA BECAUSE THEY ONLY GIVE GENERAL ADVICE" (REALLY!!!)
LOSERS= Bravo most of the Big 4 and AMP have announced that they are 'selling out' of the life business now, yet they are still signing up their members to policies they didn't even know they had.
WINNERS = Industry Funds, bless their souls had the rest of the industry (i.e THE ADVICE INDUSTRY) stop charging commissions because they are EVIL, but they can still charge an average of about 1%p.a.(of your fund) to members to give a client just 8-10 pre-determined choices that look a lot like the choices a retail adviser could provide for 50% of the cost. WHY ARE INDUSTRY FUNDS so dear? They do little for investors for the Billions they rake in.
- In addition the retail adviser could give you 100's more relevant choices that are actually explained to you, only insurance that you know you've got,and guess what the advisers will even give you a say in the insurance you take out.
WINNERS = ONLY difference is you can just 'tick a box' with the Industry Fund because their all 'honest and only working for you', BUT if you go with the Retail Fund you may have to complete a 40 page document, provide details of your actual financial circumstances, have an actual meeting with somebody, receive a one-hundred page Financial Plan setting out your current situation, and a comprehensive plan for all future goals & objectives.
- BUT HEY you don't need actual ADVICE do you?? You simply need to 'TICK a Box' with your 'INDUSTRY FUND' like you do with KENO and the LOTTO. You know how to do that don't you. It's much easier. We won't bother you with all that paperwork.
-Apparently they don't support ADVISERS because advice is no good and you will end up with less won't you????
WINNERS = WHAT... don't they also have advisers? OH YES they do, BUT they only give 'tick a box' ADVICE' don't they?
They don't give advice, only GENERAL ADVICE' apparently, but 70-80% of all their members are still in the same default funds they had their clients 'TICK A BOX' for when they were signing them up by stealth. YES 70-80% are exposed to 70 -100% of their money invested in the Sharemarket or other RISKY assets when they probably told their INDUSTRY FUND ADVISER??? that they were CONSERVATIVE INVESTORS.
OF Course if you 'DON'T get advice' you will do BETTER RIGHT? (Really are we all that stupid to fall for this conjob by INDUSTRY FUNDS??).
So therefore no need to ask INDUSTRY FUNDS any questions about ADVICE at the Royal Commission because they don't give any, OR DO THEY???? If there not giving REAL ADVICE then what are they doing with that TRILLION dollars they are minding for the mindless masses??
Is that a reasonable question?
LIARS = "FUNDS ONLY RUN TO PROFIT MEMBERS"
- "The IPA report, Rivers of Gold, shows 70 per cent of third-party payments of directors’ fees went to trade unions between 2013 and 2017"
- Bank royal commission: Hostplus entertained employers and staff with $300k of sporting tickets
I think we need a separate Royal Commission into these mafia run Industry funds. Does Malcom have the balls to take on Shorten & the Industry Super funded Unions?
Probably not.
Excellent and great to see that someone else verbalizing exactly what is happening. ISA is Labor's cash cow for literally tens of millions of assured free funding each year and they all are living rich off it and will not roll over for anyone. The advantage they have is that they are unified with one goal and focus, as opposed to the banks/Lib's and our pathetic industry (professional bodies and individual planners alike).
ISA have got their sights set on the entire superannuation pot of gold. The fact that ASIC (Kell was signed on by the Labor Gov) now has assigned two ex-ISA exec's to their fold indicates what we already know. That ASIC is no longer an impartial referee but is literally on ISA's side. The whole RC has been a farce just to reinforce the 'emergency push to clean up our retirement system' that Labor will aim to implement if/when they win the election, and force not a MySuper solution (that was phase 1) but a MyISAsuper solution mandatory across all Australians.
Totally agree with your comments on how they have patiently orchestrated this through the years, and normally by a false moral high ground (strident leftism is known for shouting down the opposition via politically correct censure) Have to admit I was surprised how easily the FSC rolled over and has played dead, whereas the Unions in their RC in 2015 were named as corrupt lying thugs but simply gave their one finger salute in reply and carried on being corrupt lying thugs (who run the ISA super - comforting, hey?).
Malcolm clearly didn't have the balls even to rule his own party, happy puppy Morrison doesn't and our only hope, the one with true figurative balls, Bishop, has had enough.
A good rant with lots of CAPITAL letters.
Re the IPA (aka Institute of Public Affairs) piece of disinformation. Being a right wing, employer based, conservative organisation well it is not going to write something nice about the unions and industry funds. The report is a political spin and so must be read cautiously.
Re another Royal Commission. There has been a Royal Commission into superannuation funds (including industry funds) and so no need for another one. Probably not a good idea anyway as more disclosures will undoubtedly eventuate on more bad behaviour of the for-profit funds.
Re hospitality stunts by a couple of industry funds. Terribly disappointing for you that this was about all that came out on the industry funds in the Royal Commission. Thankfully for the for-profit funds that they gave the Royal Commission plenty of other stuff to examine. You are truly naive to think that the for-profit funds do not spend lavishly on hospitality for themselves and their mates.
Dear Dick Hedware, please be honest if at all possible and answer my ongoing queries around your alliance and 'research' into ISA funds or admit your conflict.
You must have the rest of the ISA crew reading every comment here with a red klaxon waiting because anytime anyone here raises the slightest issue with ISA you come out red flag waving, with no facts but simply throwing aspersions at everyone else, or the 'right' side.
Great to see there is a 'right wing Liberal propganda machine' in action, I only hope it gains even greater a voice and following, as the proven corrupt unions have been successful in running their bs all over the place.
Love for your teeny brain to go toe to toe in a public forum with say Andrew Bolt, that would be amusing.
With your increasingly invective language upon anyone who disagrees with you simply shows that you have lost the plot. You should learn from Andrew as I do know he is well-mannered and polite.
...and yet again too scared to simply answer or be honest my ongoing queries around your alliance and 'research' into ISA funds or admit your conflict. Waiting.
Add new comment