Adviser exits due to banks restructuring: FASEA

FPA FASEA stephen glenfield jobs

6 August 2020
| By Jassmyn |
image
image
expand image

While regulation has been one of the factors driving financial advisers to leave the industry, it is the restructuring across major banks and advice players that has left a large number of advisers leaving the industry, according to Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA).

As part of the Financial Planning Association (FPA) congress, FASEA chief executive, Stephen Glenfield, spoke at a roundtable discussion and said there was no “magic number” of how many advisers were needed in the industry.

“FASEA is a body that was there to put a series of legislative instruments and standards in place. The reduction you’re seeing in adviser numbers are driven by any number of factors, one of which is regulation but if you think about the restructuring across the major banks and advice players there has been an enormous shift in the advice numbers which has left a large number of people leaving the market because the jobs aren’t there,” he said.

“The key to the future is that there needs to be demand for advice because demand will drive more business and bring more new entrants to the field.”

When asked if losing advisers that had years of experience was a concern, Glenfield said FASEA’s role was to put in place a framework and structure that was fair and would let advisers meet the new standards if they wished to.

“I can’t dictate to people whether they should pursue education, and I fully understand that there will be advisers that decide they don’t want to do it. My role is to present a feasible path for those who want to do it,” he said.

He noted that if he had hindsight on the criticism the authority has faced so far and whether he would have taken up the role knowing these, he would have.

“The criticism around FASEA was to do with communication and if we had more time, when I joined, we could have better communicated the message of what we were doing,” he said.

“If you look at the explanatory memorandum it talked about the FSI, talks about the PJC enquiry and the need for change.

“We took for granted that people would have accepted the change was needed. One element of pushback is that there has been a degree of non-acceptance. That change element that people are having trouble with.”

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

MARKET INSIGHTS

Completely agree Peter. The definition of 'significant change is circumstances relevant to the scope of the advice' is s...

1 month 2 weeks ago

This verdict highlights something deeply wrong and rotten at the heart of the FSCP. We are witnessing a heavy-handed, op...

1 month 2 weeks ago

Interesting. Would be good to know the details of the StrategyOne deal....

1 month 3 weeks ago

SuperRatings has shared the median estimated return for balanced superannuation funds for the calendar year 2024, finding the year achieved “strong and consistent positiv...

6 days 13 hours ago

Six of the seven listed financial advice licensees have reported positive share price growth in 2024, with AMP and Insignia successfully reversing earlier losses. ...

3 weeks 5 days ago

Specialist wealth platform provider Mason Stevens has become the latest target of an acquisition as it enters a binding agreement with a leading Sydney-based private equi...

3 weeks 4 days ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS