Advisers reject fee-for-service
Despite heavy criticism of advisers over conflicts of interest, the vast majority do not believe the financial planning industry should abandon commission-based remuneration in favour of a fee-for-service.
New research has shown that almost 60 per cent of advisers do not believe moving to an industry wide fee-for-service structure, which some consumer groups have claimed would rid financial planning of conflicts, would be appropriate.
Additionally, fewer than 40 per cent of the 715 respondents to the survey, conducted by market research company Brandmanagement, expected the wide scale move to fee-for-service would ever happen, whether they liked it or not.
The findings come as the Financial Planning Association (FPA) enters the final stage of its crusade against conflicts of interest in the financial advice industry, with a consultation paper on new principles to manage conflicts open for discussion until October 28, 2005.
The FPA principles do not ban commission payments, but make it clear that all remuneration structures have to be adequately disclosed.
However, the apparently high-profile nature of the conflicts debate appears to have passed by some advisers’ attention, with more than 36 per cent of respondents to the Brandmanagement survey indicating that they did not know whether their dealer group had rebate arrangements with the platforms that they allocated their clients’ funds to.
Of those advisers who were aware of rebate relationships, almost two-thirds thought the rebate should go towards lower fees to consumers.
The survey findings drew a mixed response from advisers and dealer groups contacted by Money Management.
Retireinvest general manager George Haramis said advisers would benefit from using purely fee-for-service models, but did not expect them to be adopted across the board.
“You’ve got too many people who have vested interests and avoid speaking to the client up-front about what they’re charging, and why they’re charging it,” he said.
Phillips Dean Brickwood adviser Brenton Tong said he expected fee-for-service models to become more common in future as consumers’ understanding of financial advice improved and they became more prepared to pay for financial advice.
“But that could be quite some distance away,” he said.
Recommended for you
The FSCP has announced its latest verdict, suspending an adviser’s registration for failing to comply with his obligations when providing advice to three clients.
Having sold Madison to Infocus earlier this year, Clime has now set up a new financial advice licensee with eight advisers.
With licensees such as Insignia looking to AI for advice efficiencies, they are being urged to write clear AI policies as soon as possible to prevent a “Wild West” of providers being used by their practices.
Iress has revealed the number of clients per adviser that top advice firms serve, as well as how many client meetings they conduct each week.
