IOOF Group lose over 400 advisers since January
IOOF Group has lost 414 advisers since the start of the year, posting one of the heaviest adviser losses among the largest groups, and has seen its adviser number operating under its umbrella drop to 1,400 at the end of September.
According to Wealth Data, when IOOF announced its acquisition of MLC in August, 2020, it highlighted a combined group of 1,884 advisers.
IOOF was followed by AMP Group and National Tax and Accountants Association (NTAA) which posted a loss of 279 and 181 advisers, respectively, at the end of Q3.
The total number of current advisers dropped further this week to 18,932, after 47 new appointments and 80 resignations were registered.
Source: Wealth Data
Further to that, 24 licensee owners posted net gains for 30 advisers and 32 licensee owners posted net losses of 65 advisers.
According to Wealth Data, after deducting the three new provisional advisers, the net losses of experienced advisers amounted to 36 this week, continuing the earlier trends with 43 losses last week and 37 losses two weeks ago.
As far as the biggest losses this week were concerned, New Zealand-based group, Craigs Investment Partners, saw a departure of 14 advisers who were not elsewhere appointed.
At the same time, WT Financial Group saw a departure of five advisers as Wealth Connection had moved from Sentry Advice, currently owned by WT Financial Group, to Infocus.
Sources: Wealth Data
AUTHOR
Oksana Patron
Recommended for you
ASIC has issued infringement notices to two AFSLs over financial advisers providing personal advice while they were unregistered.
Australian retirees could increase their projected annual incomes by as much as 51 per cent through comprehensive financial advice, according to a Vanguard study, but cost continues to be an issue.
AMP has announced a senior appointment to its North leadership team, reinforcing the firm’s commitment to the advice industry.
Despite the financial adviser exam being rooted in ethics, two professional year advisers believe the lack of support and transparency from the regulator around the exam is unethical.
