- Yes (77%)
- No (17%)
- Not sure (6%)
The revelations coming out of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry have caused us to ask you about the future of institutional ownership of distribution in the Australian market.
In framing this latest poll question, though, we’re asking you to reflect on this issue from the consumer’s perspective, rather than as an adviser.
The apparent extent of systemic issues in relation to advice and compliance that have been revealed in the last two weeks, particularly as they apply to processes and systems managed within vertically integrated networks, has given a fresh momentum to calls for the big banks to divest themselves of any ownership interests in advice networks.
“The apparent extent of systemic issues…has given a fresh momentum to calls for the big banks to divest themselves of any ownership interests in advice networks”
We know that many advisers hold this view, as do many consumer advocates. But does this also hold for consumers themselves?
For the millions of Australians who bank with the big four banks, has it become a case of the Government and regulator taking responsibility for the consumer, on their behalf, to ensure their best interests are met – free from any conflict of interest, real or perceived, that can be associated with a vertically integrated advice model?
The general mood we sense, based on our conversations with advisers and other industry contributors since the commencement of the Banking Royal Commission, is that the reputational damage being caused by the Royal Commission’s investigations is being felt by every adviser in the industry; not just those who operate under an AFSL owned by the banks or AMP.
We could go on… and on! But what we’re asking you is whether you think the ultimate beneficiary of fnancial advice – the consumer, will be better or worse off if no product manufacturers were allowed, in future, to own advice netowrks.
It’s over to you and we’ll take up the conversation again next week…
The sole purpose test of a large Institution, is to maximize profit, utilising all the resources available to them.
Big Business always screws small Business if they can get away with it. Just look at Coles and Woolworths to see that in action every day.
The Banks and Bank owned Life Companies have for years used their size and leverage to outmanoeuvre and steam roll better quality advisers than the Bank employee adviser, by using the oldest trick in the book,
What is that?
The subtle conversation that cannot be traced back, which we have been told by people on numerous occasions over the years, where the Bank suggests that the loan they would like, is treated more favorably if the Bank owned Life and disability policies available, would be added as a great package to the loan.
Of course, people are scared that their much wanted loan could be at risk if they say no, which has caused many people to end up with policies that are not competitive or in the clients Best Interest.
Of course, there will be strong denials from the Big boys in their Ivory towers, though the reason we are having a Royal Commission, is because the ivory tower guru’s forgot to see what their people on the ground were up to.
Comments are closed.