Financial Planners

[VSntchr]

Most are not qualified they hide behind licencing given to their dealer principals --- and as such are only able to sell their products and remain compliant to the conditions of coming under the umbrella of that licence.

They do these risk evaluation models which are just plane rubbish and charge $500-$1000 for the privilege. Its nothing more than you disclosing your financial position now and where you'd like to be---you can do that over coffee for $7

Then your shoveled into a fund which gives them the best return on commission and once a year your charged $500- $1000 to get the results and be advised if there is a more highly paid commissioned fund you should be transferred into.

Ask about Property and you get a blank look---No commission.
Ask about investing in a few stocks and Blank looks -- no commission.
Ask about Life insurance and Wage protection and you'll have to sit through the spiel at $500 a shot.
Most everything else your going to have to pay to sit and listen to industry jargon while they try and fit you into a commissioned product of some sort which will answer your question.

One year I tried 3 of these guys out
2 I knew and 1 I didn't I paid $1000 + GST each for them to advise me on how I should set myself up for retirement.---Perhaps they knew something I didn't or I wasn't doing things as efficiently as perhaps I could.

Not 1
Talked about passive income (I have 2 streams not fully utilized and one in the wings ready to be un leashed when I retire/semi retire).

Everyone of them wanted me with (at that time 4 yrs ago) $50K in a managed super fund and the same for my Paid wife.(from the Company). Happy days they had commission cheques well spent.

My response was to continue with my own SMSF.---Couldn't see and still cant see any benefit what so ever.
Plus I'm not going to place my eggs in a fund that has a even a slight chance of going broke.
I can do that myself!

Tech/a - like I said, I share your concerns with regard to the way advice is administered and paid for.
As for what it takes these days to become a "qualified" FP is vastly different to the couple of questions alluded to in the picture above.
As for the fat-cats which snuck in to these dealer groups in the past, this loophole is closing and any new entrants (at least with the bigger groups) are forced to much higher standards than ex-fridge salesmen.

Im in agreement with Hodgie on the fact that of course there are crappy advisers, just like there are crappy doctors who charge excessively to google your symptoms and push their scripts that they too get kickbacks from (sound familiar)...but there are also good advisers out there!

 

[tech/a]

Tech/a - like I said, I share your concerns with regard to the way advice is administered and paid for.
As for what it takes these days to become a "qualified" FP is vastly different to the couple of questions alluded to in the picture above.
As for the fat-cats which snuck in to these dealer groups in the past, this loophole is closing and any new entrants (at least with the bigger groups) are forced to much higher standards than ex-fridge salesmen.

Im in agreement with Hodgie on the fact that of course there are crappy advisers, just like there are crappy doctors who charge excessively to google your symptoms and push their scripts that they too get kickbacks from (sound familiar)...but there are also good advisers out there!

Yes I do know of 2
But like Julia I have a disdain for the profession.
Point taken that this isn't the only profession where it occurs.

However it is a profession full of wanna be's advising those who have achieved!
If they cant look after their own affairs how on earth are they going to look after ours.

Example.
One genius I know of leased a convertible for his wife-- through the company---maximum residual---(Read I cant afford the payments)---instead of to zero ---( Read I want maximum tax deduction on interest).
Wife leaves---gives back car---cars value half of the residual value owing.

And they want to look after others financial affairs!

 

[Sir Osisofliver]

You know Tech...that was really nice to read

Here I'll show you why....

Most are not qualified they hide behind licencing given to their dealer principals --- and as such are only able to sell their products and remain compliant to the conditions of coming under the umbrella of that licence.

They do these risk evaluation models which are just plane rubbish and charge $500-$1000 for the privilege. Its nothing more than you disclosing your financial position now and where you'd like to be---you can do that over coffee for $7

Then your shoveled into a fund which gives them the best return on commission and once a year your charged $500- $1000 to get the results and be advised if there is a more highly paid commissioned fund you should be transferred into.

Managed funds are icky. Most should be aware that is my view, it's also the view of the company I work for. The only kind of "fund" product on our APL is an ETF...and only for use in very limited circumstances where the funds are insufficient for our normal investing activities. Otherwise we invest directly in a range of asset classes on behalf of clients. Ownership and control rests with the client.

Ask about Property and you get a blank look---No commission.

We purchase Residential and Commercial (we charge fees)

Ask about investing in a few stocks and Blank looks -- no commission.

It's what we do...and do it well.....we charge fees associated with this activity.

Ask about Life insurance and Wage protection and you'll have to sit through the spiel at $500 a shot.

If we think you need Insurance we recommend you to a specialist at "Mates Rates". Risk is only on our AFSL so we can incorporate it into planning activities, not sell insurance.

Most everything else your going to have to pay to sit and listen to industry jargon while they try and fit you into a commissioned product of some sort which will answer your question.

We do a fair bit of education with our clients so they understand what is being recommended.

One year I tried 3 of these guys out
2 I knew and 1 I didn't I paid $1000 + GST each for them to advise me on how I should set myself up for retirement.---Perhaps they knew something I didn't or I wasn't doing things as efficiently as perhaps I could.

You'd be charged a fair bit more than that depending upon the complexity of the advice required...That said you get some free time for a chat and if we can't help you....no charge.

Not 1
Talked about passive income (I have 2 streams not fully utilized and one in the wings ready to be un leashed when I retire/semi retire).

Everyone of them wanted me with (at that time 4 yrs ago) $50K in a managed super fund and the same for my Paid wife.(from the Company). Happy days they had commission cheques well spent.

My response was to continue with my own SMSF.---Couldn't see and still cant see any benefit what so ever.
Plus I'm not going to place my eggs in a fund that has a even a slight chance of going broke.
I can do that myself!

We usually encourage clients to use SMSF structures, if applicable.

Ok in my journey in the financial world...I started out as a great many do in the industry....out of a genuine desire to help people. It was a rude shock to find out that...yes, to a large degree, I was a salesperson first and an Advisor second. This however is totally the fault of the licensee. (as you can see above I don't work for that kind of licensee any more).The Licensees are the gatekeeper for what is allowed and what is not allowed and how the business is run.

As for Planners...RG146 - is just a piece of paper. It's a very generic piece of paper as well...and it needs to be because the licensee will then need to educate the Planner into "Their way of doing things". I have to say...it's been a challenge at the firm to find experienced planners, because they are firmly rooted into the pre-existing commission based model. Either they don't like being paid a salary, or they tend to think they can rest on their laurels and not actually work for the salary.

Before an Advisor however is allowed any where near a client, they have to meet all our internal requirements...which isn't just a couple of Kaplan CPD articles a month.

I guess that makes me and the company...different to most of what is out there.

Cheers

Sir O

 

[VSntchr]

However it is a profession full of wanna be's advising those who have achieved!
If they cant look after their own affairs how on earth are they going to look after ours.

Good point Tech/A and it's something that is applicable across a wide range of industries, again healthcare comes to mind.
Here's a good video saying a similar thing (and an excuse for a bit of a chuckle..)

 

[Julia]

If you think this is the reality then I am afraid you've been swept up in media hype. Not that I am here to bat for advisers, I certainly have major issues with the industry - but that picture does not portray anything close to the reality for what it takes to become a qualified advisor...at least in my experience.

And if you think my understanding of the industry is confined to a single article in a paper, then you are making an illogical and uninformed judgement.

I've known many financial planners, several in love with the commission model, a few exactly as Sir O has described himself. Others posting here also.

Are you contradicting what the journalist has said? That the questions he quoted do not actually appear in the test? That the test is not open book, multiple choice? If you are, then you should take it up with the journalist.

Hodgie's point about existing degrees is, of course, well made and the rest of his post also to the point.

I stand by saying that ASIC is not doing what it should be to protect people from self-interested 'advisers'.
I've still not recovered from hearing that legislation was to be enacted to ensure advisers acted in the best interests of the client, being of the apparently naive belief that that would be a given.

Mostly I'm just surprised that so few people take the time and trouble to become financially literate. It's not that hard, but so many otherwise intelligent and well educated people just seem to allow their eyes to glaze over when it comes to even basic financial management.

I'm 100% with Tech/A. No financial adviser is going to have your interests at heart as much as you will yourself.
That's absolutely not to say there are not good, competent people available. But for much of the public, they don't know what they don't know (to paraphrase Mr Rumsfeld), and as we continually see, are vulnerable to being sucked into not just outright scams but just poor advice.

No one is saying the whole industry is rotten. Of course not. The purpose of the article, and the purpose of my posting it, is to indicate that it is apparently possible to acquire a piece of paper describing the holder as a fully qualified financial planner, with fairly minimal effort.

 

[tech/a]

No one is saying the whole industry is rotten. Of course not. The purpose of the article, and the purpose of my posting it, is to indicate that it is apparently possible to acquire a piece of paper describing the holder as a fully qualified financial planner, with fairly minimal effort.

Its not limited to the Financial arena.

In the Building Industry you can have a restricted licence and construct structures worth Millions yet cannot build a house worth $250K because you don't have a full builders licence.
You can however build what you like without a licence provided its for your own use and not for resale.
If however in a few years you put it on the open market---who cares!

Bureaucrats

 

[Antoinette32]

And if you think my understanding of the industry is confined to a single article in a paper, then you are making an illogical and uninformed judgement.

I've known many financial planners, several in love with the commission model, a few exactly as Sir O has described himself. Others posting here also.

Are you contradicting what the journalist has said? That the questions he quoted do not actually appear in the test? That the test is not open book, multiple choice? If you are, then you should take it up with the journalist.

Hodgie's point about existing degrees is, of course, well made and the rest of his post also to the point.

I stand by saying that ASIC is not doing what it should be to protect people from self-interested 'advisers'.
I've still not recovered from hearing that legislation was to be enacted to ensure advisers acted in the best interests of the client, being of the apparently naive belief that that would be a given.

Mostly I'm just surprised that so few people take the time and trouble to become financially literate. It's not that hard, but so many otherwise intelligent and well educated people just seem to allow their eyes to glaze over when it comes to even basic financial management.

I'm 100% with Tech/A. No financial adviser is going to have your interests at heart as much as you will yourself.
That's absolutely not to say there are not good, competent people available. But for much of the public, they don't know what they don't know (to paraphrase Mr Rumsfeld), and as we continually see, are vulnerable to being sucked into not just outright scams but just poor advice.

No one is saying the whole industry is rotten. Of course not. The purpose of the article, and the purpose of my posting it, is to indicate that it is apparently possible to acquire a piece of paper describing the holder as a fully qualified financial planner, with fairly minimal effort.

I studied with these guys and finished around 6 weeks ago. Admittedly I came from a "non-financial" background although I did study maths in year 12. It took me 13 months (as I work full time as a pathology scientist). I reckon on and off I would have spent close to 350 hours studying minimum so not sure how this journalist was able to get through like he claims. I wouldn't be able to read and digest let alone complete the assessments in what he's suggesting. The superannuation section alone took me 5 months to get through. Those multiple choice questions are not a fair reflection though, most of them were pretty hard. Anyway my feeling about studying online hence not having to do sit down exams like at uni (which I did in my science degree) is mixed. I think you probably should have set exams, but then I pretty much forget everything after cramming that way so I guess people learn and retain knowledge differently. I will say I haven't been able to get a job, and the recruiter I spoke to said that it is a really bad time to get work in the financial planning industry as a new graduate with no experience

 

[dutchie]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12...of-truth-arrives-new-regulator-fasea/11796254