Don’t blame lead generation says IFPA

Mike Taylor

Managing Editor and Publisher

16 April 2026

Blaming the failures of Shield and First Guardian on lead generation is both convenient and wrong, according to the president of the Institute of Financial Professionals Australia, Scott Heathwood.

Rather, he claims that what happened in both cases was not a failure of advertising or client acquisition, but “an integrated scam – a closed loop where lead generation, advice, product manufacturing and capital flows were all aligned to serve one outcome – moving client money into a predetermined destination”.

“We should not allow a serious case of alleged fraud to be used to redefine legitimate, technologically driven, opt-in marketing as somehow equivalent to cold calling or high- pressure sales tactics,” Heathwood said.

He claimed technology-driven, opt-in marketing is not the same thing as cold calling or high-pressure sales tactics.

“They are not the same thing, and many advisers generate leads using social media, competitions, and their websites to prospect for new business. Indeed, organisations operating in the digital advice space, not only use technology and social media but the entire prospect journey is technology driven.

“Cold calling is already illegal. High-pressure selling is unacceptable. And where either occurs, regulators should act decisively.

“But opt-in lead generation, where a consumer responds to advertising and chooses to engage, is not only lawful, it is a fundamental part of a competitive and accessible advice market. Blurring these lines risks something far more serious: restricting how Australians discover and access financial advice,” Heathwood said.

He said most advisers operating in the space had refined their practices so that initial inquiries could be dealt with by general advisers or triaged by customer service representatives and that it was only when a person sought personal advice that they were introduced to an adviser.

Heathwood said focusing on lead generation distracted from the real lesson.

“As highlighted in recent analysis, the problem was the conflicted, vertically integrated structure – where control of the client journey, select advisers, responsible managers, trustees, development managers & lenders, and the research house were complicit by omission, in the product failure, he said. “That is where the regulator focus should remain.”

Heathwood said the regulators should be seeking to eliminate misconduct, not dismantling legitimate business practices.