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.
AUTHOR
Zoe Fielding
Recommended for you
Research conducted by Elixir Consulting and Lonsec has quantified the efficiency gains of using managed accounts in financial advice practices in hours per week saved.
WIth only one-quarter of advice practices actively seeking feedback from clients, the Financial Advice Association Australia has emphasised why this is a critical tool for client retention.
As the government announces a public inquiry into the collapse of Dixon Advisory, risk adviser Richard Silberman has detailed the three areas that typically lead to an AFSL's collapse.
With a growing number of advisers now running their own business, they need to pivot their career identity to being a business owner rather than just as a financial adviser if they want to futureproof their business.
