Skip to main content

Support for new tier, but not ‘qualified advisers’

Mike Taylor10 May 2024
Error Error Try Again

The Government may have got it wrong by proposing the creation of “qualified advisers’ but there is room in the advice sector for people who carry who carry a designation that enables the delivery of limited advice.

That is the bottom line of a panel of financial planning licensee and superannuation fund executives at a Financial Newswire conference in the Hunter Valley.

The panel agreed that the Government had erred in suggesting that a new tier of personnel in the advice chain could be designated as ‘qualified advisers’ but they all agreed that the creation of a new tier was both warranted and would help deliver more affordable outcomes for clients.

Fortnum Private Wealth chief executive, Neil Younger said he believed there was room for a new designation in the advice ecosystem but it needed to be made clear that people carrying that designation were not actually qualified as financial advisers.

Infocus managing director, Darren Steinhardt said he agreed with Younger’s assessment and that he felt sure the Government would ultimately deliver a designation more suited to the delivery of information to clients short of delivering wholistic advice.

Importantly, both the superannuation fund executives on the panel, Mine Super’s head of advice, David Bignell and NESS Super chief executive, Paul Cahill agreed with the need to better define and name the new designation.

Both superannuation funds have been delivering for financial advice to members for some years and said they would be supportive of a new tier.

For his part, Steinhardt said that his firm would be looking to monetise the delivery of advice via such a new tier.

Mike Taylor

Mike Taylor

Managing Editor/Publisher, Financial Newswire

Subscribe to comments
Be notified of
3 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Marco Spaniol
21 days ago

The proposal was so ridiculous, the Government undoubtedly knew it would be rejected by the industry.

It was purposely proposed to give the industry a ‘win’ when the Government ultimately changes the title to something more reasonable.

Having felt we have had a win, the Government hopes that we will then be more agreeable to all the other horrendous proposals put forward.

It’s another Adviser Stitch Up
21 days ago
Reply to  Marco Spaniol

100% classic political BS play to say Advisers have had a win when we can all see Jonesy has a single focus to do whatever Industry Super want.

And Industry Super want to flog more product via Uneducated, Unqualified backpacker call centres with next to zero Regulation.
At the same time leave Real Advisers tied up in the Gordian Knot and Hot Mess of mass costly useless Red Tape.

Brad
20 days ago

Absolute garbage!
They (Industry Funds) want the green light to give Unqualified Conflicted Advice under a new name. The very reason the banks no longer operate licensees to give advice(‘Conflicted Renumeration’). The very reason we had a Royal Commission(RC). Do we really want RC 2.0. I’m sure the Industry funds don’t want to lose their licences the same way the banks did.
There’s nothing more conflicted than a single Super Product provider(who’s vertically aligned) giving Financial Advice, when the only thing they sell is one single super product. That would be like saying we trust the Ford dealership salesman to sell people a BMW, or a Toyota. Is this government for real??

It goes to show that this Government believe Financial Advice only pertains to super, because that’s all the Industry Funds have any knowledge about, and only around their own ‘single product’. Why would we give these people the ability to offer any form of ‘non-conflicted Financial Advice’, when clearly they are conflicted and will not be incentivized to offer more than the product that they are working for and getting paid by. How long do you think their jobs will last if the Australian Super representative offers their own members advice to join HESTA, or another retail fund. It’s not going to happen, and if you believe these funds are nothing more than self-serving you are an absolute imbecile.

Are Australian Super going to offer you a retail product, or are Mine super going to recommend anything other than there vertically aligned product?? Of course they won’t. This Labour Government is green lighting ‘vertically aligned Product Providers’ to become quasi advisers. If it wasn’t so serious it would be laughable!!

Are vertically aligned Super Funds going to advise on debt, loans, retirement options (e.g. Annuities, Centrelink), Aged Care, transitioning to Retirement, non-super investments (outside their product), Home Care, Estate Planning, Income Protection and Critical Illness cover, Direct Equities, SMSFs, Geared products, Limited Recourse borrowing. I don’t think the backpackers and overseas call centres have this capability, and to put the financial information into the hands of inexperienced kids is a recipe for disaster, and a potential for massive fraud and cybercrime. Have they even considered these issues.
What they forget is Financial Advisers must be trusted, accountable individuals, with something to lose. Do you think a backpacker at a call centre has anything to lose when dealing with your life savings. This proposal is irresponsible and dangerous, and should be quashed.

The truth is these funds are actually actively trying to shield their members from actual Financial Advice because it may be discovered that their product is not the absolute best option for their members and the Federal Labour Government are now playing an active role in this deception to an uninformed public.