Significant loss of 46 advisers marks end of FY2022–23
Going into the end of the financial year, adviser movements remain disappointing with a large loss of 46 advisers for the week, according to Wealth Data.
“While the numbers are disappointing this week, we tend to see a volatile period as we end one financial year and enter the other,” said Colin Williams, Wealth Data founder.
Current adviser numbers stand at 15,735 with a net change of -452 for the financial year to date.
This week, 14 licensee owners had net gains for 17 advisers. Meanwhile, 53 licensee owners had net losses for 80 advisers.
Three licensees ceased and there were no new licensees.
Williams also explains why the actual loss of 46 was lesser than the expected 63, given the loss of 80 advisers at licensees and net gains of 17.
“The reason that the actual loss is significantly less, is due to LGSS (Local Government Super now known as Active Super) losing 13 advisers,” he said.
“However, the advisers were also (and still are) authorised at Industry Fund Services in October last year. Therefore, they have not been ceased on the FAR and still provide advice services to Active Super members.”
In terms of growth, Evans and Partners, a licensee that has been particularly active in hiring new starts, welcomed three new entrants. It has five provisional advisers and six other advisers who commenced post 2019, bringing them to a total of 91 advisers.
Clime saw a rise of two advisers, both joining Maddison and both being new entrants.
Pitcher Partners, Koda Capital, Macquarie Group, and nine other licensee owners welcomed one adviser.
Looking at losses, LGSS Super (Active Super) was down by 13 in a licensee switch. Diverger was down four, losing two advisers each at GPS Wealth and Merit Wealth.
Count Group was down by three advisers, losing one from Affinia and two from Count. Ozplan was also down by three advisers.
Some eight licensee owners bid farewell to two advisers each, including Insignia, Sequoia, and Morgans.
Around 41 licensee owners were down by one adviser each, including Fitzpatricks, Findex, PSK Group, and WT Financial Group.
“The end and start of each financial year does create a significant amount of adviser movement,” explained Williams.
“Excluding the losses at key cut off times for FASEA exams, resignations are at their highest in June with the last day being the most critical, and appointments are at their greatest in July. Much of the movement includes advisers switching licensees.”
Williams predicts next week’s adviser movements will be “very interesting.”
“It will cover the end of this financial year and the first few days of the new financial year. While there can be some ‘drag’ to get the complete picture, as licensees have up to 30 days to report movement, we tend to see the bulk of adviser movement reported quickly,” he said.
“We are expecting to see many advisers switching licensees, including switching into their own self licensed AFSLs.”
AUTHOR
Rhea Nath
Recommended for you
The FSCP has announced its latest verdict, suspending an adviser’s registration for failing to comply with his obligations when providing advice to three clients.
Having sold Madison to Infocus earlier this year, Clime has now set up a new financial advice licensee with eight advisers.
With licensees such as Insignia looking to AI for advice efficiencies, they are being urged to write clear AI policies as soon as possible to prevent a “Wild West” of providers being used by their practices.
Iress has revealed the number of clients per adviser that top advice firms serve, as well as how many client meetings they conduct each week.
I am surprised there are not more departures of advisers. (the death by a thousand cuts)
My guess is the numbers will keep declining ( I cant see any reason why you would want to be part of the industry and I certainly wouldn’t encourage it to any aspiring professional)
Sad comment really just at the time when we need the skill sets, to help the cohort of people lining up to exit the workforce. (You know those that have been in the work force for the last 40 + years)
honestly nobody should be surprised - the back-room boys in the union world have control of the narrative, - and we who thought advisers might try to push back - have bedwetters sitting on the sidelines - who are in denial. The raft of moral imperatives, (either real or imagined) that were poorly wrapped up in the need to be more skilled, the need to have the standards above the legal requirements of the Corps Act, - have proven to be a well-constructed lie.
The response to the (euphemistically called QAR - should have been retitled the coup de grâce) by the labor team to provide a total carve out to the obligations that were so strenuously needed to make sure the industry was professional.
The Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry. was the key plank. It provides the lead in the title Misconduct - Banking Superannuation and Financial Services.
Just an aside - Even a little bit of insight can show that we have about 3.2 trillion Aus in this tax structure - approximately half of that is under the direct control of the cabal of the ISN and the labor side of politics - both directly and indirectly. It’s curious how of the 72 recommendations - (noting that close enough to 50 % of the money is under the control by the ISN world) you would be hard pressed to find one full comment (direction)directed that way.
Even if you are not an adviser - or a "bit" player on the side with less skin in the game, it's not possible to make the observation that problems will not exist across the fence as it were and these are at the detriment to the "advice industry"
As an adviser - I could reel off many instances of dishonest behaviour (that deliberately seek to breach Standard One of the FASEA obligations) by the erstwhile ISN team. So now Mr. Jones has executed the total carve out- for the mates, no requirement for recognized training standards, no professional standards, no education hurdles, no FASEA Exam as even a start point to ram home ethics, no adviser levy, no mandated and expensive education - the list is endless to the new barriers introduced under the guise of the moral imperative. - please it was always about the level playing field how can we carve out from a commercial perspective and keep all and sundry away from the honey pot – and one big honey pot it is. To all the bewetters, that have decried that the process would increase professionalism, to all the nanny state group think idealogues from within the adviser ranks. Is it obvious now? Or do we have a bad case of denial? - Denial, I don't happen to believe in that either.