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
Clime’s disposal of advice licensee Madison “needed to happen yesterday”, managing director Michael Baragwanath has told Money Management, as he concludes a severe cost-out period at the business.
As Viola Private Wealth continues on its growth trajectory, the wealth management firm has appointed a seasoned investment professional to be its first chief investment officer.
Financial advisers who wish to implement artificial intelligence in their practices need to undergo a change in their mindset as to how they use technology.
With United Global Capital expected to constitute a substantial portion of CSLR compensation in FY25–26, what has AFCA ruled in its determinations on the company so far?
