Planners and accountants’ cross purposes sabotage referral relationship
Financial planners and accountants will not be able to work with each other if the former seeks ad-hoc relationships and the latter only seeks revenue from any joint work conducted with clients.
The two professions will also struggle to work together if they regard clients as turf to protect and referred services as a grudge purchase to be made as cheaply as possible, according to Fortnum Financial Advisers Head of Strategic Development Scott Charlton.
He said, as an accountant and an adviser to accountants and financial planners, that he was familiar with the antagonism between the two sectors and had heard many of the war stories from both sides but stated that tension was often created by planners and accountants failing to approach each other correctly.
According to Charlton, planners often approach accountants in an ad-hoc manner, usually around a time of legislative change, offering assistance but overlooking that accountants are well aware of the changes and have likely been approached by a number of other advice providers.
He said planners need to have a well-developed and compelling relationship to offer accountants and not adopt a ‘throw up and show up’ approach but build a connection around regular contact using shared goals and resources.
“Like planners, accountants have trusted relationships with clients they will not easily pass on because of concerns regarding damage to that relationship. They will need to be comfortable with the planner long before that happens and that needs to be developed over time.”
He also stated that accountants tend to consider a referral relationship with a financial planner as an opportunity to gain revenue but are being inconsistent in this approach.
“As accountants they invoice clients for their time and expertise and they would not ask a lawyer for revenue share but they will do this with a financial planner,” Charlton said.
He said planners who open discussions about partnering with accountants by talking about revenue sharing paint themselves in a poor light and should instead point to “earnings from the advice provided by both parties and not how much they can clip the ticket”.
Rather planners should be presenting a case for improving the value of advice and services to the accountant’s clients that is not related to product and which is pitched to the interest of accountants and their clients.
AUTHOR
Jason Spits
Recommended for you
A financial advice firm has been penalised $11 million in the Federal Court for providing ‘cookie cutter advice’ to its clients and breaching conflicted remuneration rules.
Insignia Financial has experienced total quarterly net outflows of $1.8 billion as a result of client rebalancing, while its multi-asset flows halved from the prior quarter.
Prime Financial is looking to shed its “sleeping giant” reputation with larger M&A transactions going forward, having agreed to acquire research firm Lincoln Indicators.
An affiliate of Pinnacle Investment Management has expanded its reach with a London office as the fund manager seeks to grow its overseas distribution into the UK and Europe.
