Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
moneymanagement logo
 
 

Under the media microscope

financial-planners/financial-services-companies/financial-planning-industry/commissions/money-management/retail-investors/

16 July 2009
| By Mike Taylor |

Money Management would like to invite its online readers to take part in the debate about industry issues. Please feel free to add your thoughts to the weekly Editorial.

It is not particularly unusual for financial services companies to hold stakes in major publishing companies. Nor is it unusual for research houses to own or control publishing companies, but it is unusual for a publishing company to own a funds management outfit.

Major Australian metropolitan publisher Fairfax wholly owns InvestSmart, which is marketed as having been created “to provide Australian retail investors with low cost access to quality financial information and products” and is an embedded part of the Fairfax Internet offering, Fairfax Digital.

None of this is new. Fairfax has controlled InvestSmart since 2007. However, financial planners may find the information unsettling in circumstances where they have been receiving some tough treatment at the hands of writers for Fairfax publications.

Just as scrupulous business writers have an obligation to declare their shareholdings in the companies about which they write, the more scrupulous among Fairfax journalists dealing with financial planning have acknowledged the fact that their employer has an interest in InvestSmart. Others have not, which may suggest they simply do not know.

Those who work for reputable publishing organisations generally accept the ethical position that the commercial interests of their employer are kept entirely separate from the manner in which they cover a story. But just as financial planners might be perceived as having been tainted by the acceptance of commissions, so might a journalist expect to be similarly perceived if their employer owns a business that offers financial services in competition with planners.

Some planners might also argue that if a journalist is a member of an industry superannuation fund, they ought declare that interest when writing stories comparing industry funds with retail master trusts.

If the financial planning industry is to be placed under the media microscope, those controlling the focus should be obliged to declare their interests. There is nothing wrong with scrutiny and legitimate criticism, but what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

What are your thoughts?

- Mike Taylor

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

MARKET INSIGHTS

Significant ethical issues there. If a relationship is in the process of breaking down then both parties are likely to b...

1 week 5 days ago

It's not licensees not putting them on, it's small businesses (that are licensed) that cannot afford to put them on. The...

2 weeks 5 days ago

So we are now underwriting criminal scams?...

6 months 3 weeks ago

After last month’s surprise hold, the Reserve Bank of Australia has announced its latest interest rate decision....

2 weeks ago

A professional year supervisor has been banned for five years after advice provided by his provisional relevant provider was deemed to be inappropriate, the first time th...

3 weeks 5 days ago

WT Financial’s Keith Cullen is eager for its Hubco initiative to see advice firms under its licence trade at multiples which are catching up to those UK and US financial ...

2 weeks 3 days ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND
Fund name
3y(%)pa
1
DomaCom DFS Mortgage
74.26 3 y p.a(%)
3