Institutional dominance more compromising than commissions

super funds remuneration compliance financial planning australian securities and investments commission financial advisers cooper review

11 December 2009
| By Mike Taylor |
image
image
expand image

The dominance of financial planning by large financial institutions represents a greater conflict of interest than commission-based remuneration, according to a submission to the Cooper Review on superannuation by a Sydney financial planner.

The planner, Healthy Financial principal Richard Cosier, used his submission to support the broad concept of a national default superannuation fund. But he questioned who was really adding value in the superannuation value chain, and suggested that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) added no value whatever for the vast majority of members — yet added dramatically to the cost of super funds.

“For the vast majority of members, ASIC adds no value whatever, yet adds dramatically to the cost of super funds because its policies (or the threat of them) cause every other group in the chain to go overboard in an attempt to reduce the risks of non-compliance,” Cosier’s submission stated.

He said that on the basis of the Westpoint and Storm experience, ASIC would appear to have failed in its objective to protect members and investors from unscrupulous product sellers and their distribution network.

Cosier said the other major question mark in the value chain was the role of the licensee — with the licensee/adviser relationship being completely misunderstood by most people.

“In fact these two groups have quite different basic objectives, and are often unwilling partners,” his submission stated. “Advisers are in the advice and planning business, and the licensee is in the compliance and distribution business.”

Cosier said that much had been said about financial advisers having a conflict of interest because they were paid by commission but, in fact, the biggest conflict of interest arose from the fact that 80 per cent of licensees were owned by large financial institutions.

He said that it was in these circumstances that a distinction needed to be drawn between planners working for companies linked to the major institutions and those who were bona fide independent licensees.

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...

2 months ago

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

2 months 1 week ago

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

2 months 1 week 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...

3 weeks 2 days ago

Original bidder Bain Capital, which saw its first offer rejected in December, has returned with a revised bid for Insignia Financial....

2 weeks 2 days ago

The FAAA has secured CSLR-related documents under the FOI process, after an extended four-month wait, which show little analysis was done on how the scheme’s cost would a...

2 weeks ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS