Three largest adviser groups have lost 52% of advisers

Net adviser losses at the three largest advice groups – IOOF, AMP and NTAA Group –account for 52% year to date, which is disproportionate to their size, according to Wealth Data.

The number of adviser roles at the start of 2021 at those three groups accounted for 20% of all roles and decreased since to 17.5% of all current adviser roles. This meant the net decline per group stood at -20.33%.

By comparison, after excluding these three groups, adviser roles from the rest of the sector dropped only by 4.71%, from 16,732 to 15,944 since the start of the year.

Related News:

Data from Wealth Data said IOOF, AMP Group and NTAA jointly slashed 861 adviser roles, since the start of the year. Individually, the groups saw a departure of 401, 297 and 181 roles, respectively.

Source: Wealth Data

This week saw 50 new appointments and 56 resignations, resulting in a net change of -6 roles.

At the same time, 28 licensee owners had net gains for 39 roles and 30 licensee owners had net losses of 45 roles.

As far as the growth in adviser net movement was concerned, at the licensee owner level, Capstone posted a net growth of four advisers. Two were from Crown Wealth, one from MIQ Private Wealth, and another adviser returned to advice after leaving three years ago.

Also, two new licensee owners commenced with three advisers each.

Easton Group saw a departure of five roles, and was followed by IOOF and AMP Group which lost four and three roles this week.

The number of actual advisers decreased this week to 19,030 while the number of adviser roles dropped to 19,319.




Recommended for you

Author

Comments

Comments

What is the purpose of all these stats? Who cares? Oh I know - promotion for Wealth Data.

No surprise that the biggest % declines are in SMSF limited advice. Accountants providing SMSF advice were told that if they didn't become licensed when the old exemption expired, they would be subject to regulatory action.

The opposite turned out to be true. Those accountants who continued giving advice without a licence have been completely ignored by regulators. Meanwhile those who became licensed have been subject to the same barrage of bad regulation and indiscriminate persecution as financial advisers. Why would any accountant who gives investment or super advice bother to be licensed?

Yep. The departures for IOOF will accelerate once they jack up their fees on the 1st of October. Those remaining will have to pay even higher fees. Just like what was happening with the ASIC levy.

What's happening with these AMP advisers. If they're still in the industry (the one's that are left after AMP drove most of them broke) then AMP advisers need to go on a North Korean re education style camp to beat the AMP out of them.

Interesting how ASIC issued an alert to licensee's about Dover Advisers, and nothing was said about AMP.

"Lies, damn lies, and statistics...".

Hysterical, attention grabbing clickbait headlines...

In the context of [say] ~19,000 AR's, the movement of 50-60 AR's is almost inconsequential, but using PERCENTAGES, it looks terribly dramatic.

Where is the understated, factual reporting?

Where are you, Mike Taylor?!?

If 50 advisors leave every week that's another 2600 advisors in a year.

Given we only have 19,000 advisors left that's in excess of 10% of the remaining advisors gone.

I am glad these losses continue to be reported and look forward to playing my part in holding the government to account at the next election. Cross bench all the way.

Thanks for your reply to my comment. I will start from the end, from the simple to the more complex.

1) I absolutely agree with you regarding this pathetic, incompetent, anti small business, destructive Government; and like you, will only support the smaller parties which are competent, rational, and demonstrate this aggressively;

2] I am also glad that these numbers are being reported, and they do somewhat hold people to account. IMO, these policies are clearly indicative of the catastrophic, badly designed policies of this Government, and BTW, are often badly conceived, illegal, legislated or regulated on the basis that they are "Ambit claims", and will take years, possibly decades thousands of casualties, and millions of dollars to reverse the misbegotten legislation and ideologically driven bureaucratic totalitarianism.

Make no mistake about it: Polluticians regularly "Try you on" and "See what they can get away with" before the citizenry rebels, then they adeptly "Back and cover"

Although digressing from Financial Services, the recent "Covid Conduct" of ALL levels of Government is demonstrative of the ignorant, incompetent, arbitrary, irrational, vastly overreaching, authoritarian and totalitarian leanings of Government and the "Public Service".

3] Now, I suggest you improve your "Reading Comprehension Skills", because there WAS NOT a Net Loss of ~50 AR's this week, but rather a MOVEMENT of 56 AR's, with a Net Loss of 6.

a) Please reread paragraphs 5-6: [Source: Wealth Data] "...This week saw 50 new appointments and 56 resignations, resulting in a net change of -6 roles."

"At the same time, 28 licensee owners had net gains for 39 roles and 30 licensee owners had net losses of 45 roles...".

While the loss is almost inconsequential, it is still a trend, and needs to be researched and understood.

What I object to is sensational headlines in a supposedly "professional" journal; mangled, manipulated and out of context statistics, created for no constructive purpose;

b) Please reread paragraphs 1-4 to try and understand the mangled, out of context main statistics which relate to the 3 largest group's ANNUAL losses YTD.

Have a great week!

Add new comment