Cormann to boost voice of the independents

by |

Since March 2012 the AIOFP has been working on a Consultative Committee to represent the needs of the non-aligned adviser firms in the market.

The association met with Shadow Finance Minister Mathias Cormann, who has pledged his support for the cause. He has agreed to meet with a committee on a regular basis to discuss the needs of the independently-owned advice market.

The AIOFP put forward four objectives that Cormann agreed to work on with the committee:

  1. Platform reclassification (“platforms are administration services, not investment products”)
  2. Transparency in advice promotion
  3. Mitigating FOS and COSL’s operating environment
  4. Eliminating opt in

The paper from the AIOFP, available on our site, says that the independently-owned sector has been “naïve” in expecting other associations to represent its needs. It calls for a united voice and says that “independents need to demonstrate their preparedness to self-regulate to give Government and consumers greater confidence in our sector”.

“Although we agree with certain aspects of FOFA, we believe some conditions of the critical Conflicted Remuneration regulations are highly discriminatory to our sector,” the AIOFP says in the paper.

The committee will consist of no more than 12 participants from small and large advisory firms, on an initial honorary basis. It is proposed that it will meet on a quarterly basis with the Ministers office, ASIC, APRA and any other agencies/stakeholders. The AIOFP will invite directors from within and outside its membership.

Click here to automatically download the paper.

Do you think this committee is a good idea for the independently owned adviser market? Share your thoughts below.

  • GAB on 13/05/2013 8:45:42 AM

    ....and it should be a major concern that the banks pretty much own the industry and all the all the platforms. We've seen their ability to turn off the adviser revenue, using FoFA as a reason to turn off supposedly "conflicted revenue". How much more conflicted can you get when the bank owns the product and retains the revenue even when the adviser gets dumped. Opt-in is a classic example. The FDS is another classic....banks turn off the adviser fees for their own channel but can adjust salaries and KPIs to some other measure. Seriously considering a non bank Admin service.....

  • Michael on 10/05/2013 9:47:33 AM

    Yesterday's annoucement by Shorten just underlined the need for this. A new consultative group with no independent involvement and 2 out of 4 being the past NAB Wealth boss and a current director of NAB Wealth. Supported by an APRA official.
    No slight on them but hardly a group across the interests of the hundreds of thousands of SMSF's members.

WP forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Name (required)
Comment (required)
By submitting, I agree to the Terms & Conditions