Institutional conflicts of interest remain in advice

financial planning

18 July 2017
| By Malavika |
image
image
expand image

The institutions are resisting individual adviser licensing for fear of losing influence, according to Connect Financial Service Brokers principal, Paul Tynan.

Tynan said financial advice industry continues to be riddled with challenges, particularly with the “potential and perceived” conflicts of interest inherent in institutions, according to Connect Financial Service Brokers.

He said the long-term viability, role, and relevance of licensees have been under constant scrutiny since the inception of the advice model.

“From its inception it has been impossible to defend the claim the process is in the best interest of the consumer and provides unbiased/uninfluenced advice when institutions are both the product manufacturer and owner of the licensee,” Tynan said.

“It’s a situation that first evolved from the development of platforms in the 90s that laid the foundation for the current business model.”

But Tynan argued that as the advice sector transitioned to a “true profession”, it would be the public that would decide on the validity of non-institutional influence, and individual adviser licensing would be the preferred model.

But institutions would resist the individual adviser Australian financial services licensing (AFSL) concept for fear of losing influence and control of their distribution networks, while regulators would fear an increase in their workload.

Meanwhile, many institutions still had a buyer of last resort (BOLR) provision in place where there is an agreement for institutions to buy individual licensees if they cannot find another buyer but Tynan said this practice would become more difficult to defend under conflict of interest/client best interest scrutiny.

“Although the institutions have been constantly chipping away at the rules, for several of the larger industry players their business models are very dependent on BOLRs,” Tynan said.

“Unfortunately, again it is the would be new generation/entrant that is impacted the most by these BOLR rules that has institutions requiring them to buy businesses/books of clients at inflated prices that do not reflect true market valuation.”

Furthermore, while institutions have always invested heavily in platforms and have attracted investment fund inflows, smaller nimble players have been quicker to keep pace with technological innovations.

“It’s hard to see how (and if) institutions can respond to the new era of change that is driven by client centric business models and technology… unfortunately time is not on their side,” Tynan said.

 

 

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 1 week 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...

4 days 15 hours ago

Insignia Financial has confirmed it is considering a preliminary non-binding proposal received from a US private equity giant to acquire the firm. ...

4 weeks 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 3 days ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS