Comments for riskinfo » News

Comment on Industry Disagrees Over Extent of FoFA Job Losses by Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 06:23:27 +0000

Julia says it is all about JOBS JOBS JOBS unless you work in the Financial Services Industry in which case it is all about JOB LOSSES, JOB LOSSES, JOB LOSSES. The day when this unpopular self serving government and David Whitely will no longer be able to mess us around is thankfully getting closer.

Comment on Industry Disagrees Over Extent of FoFA Job Losses by Jeremy Wright

Jeremy Wright — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 04:47:43 +0000

It would make more sense to ask people how much they are prepared to pay for Insurance advise and then calculate the cost to provide comprehensive advise and all the administration work that goes with it.
We have done this exercise and 100% of people have said the amount of money they are prepared to pay for advise and all the ancillary work to get to the completion of the Insurance coverage, does not even cover a fraction of the cost, let alone enough to make a profit.
Investment/lending advise is different and people are happy to pay for advise in these areas.
To make assumptions that clients will pay for Insurance advise as part of a total planning strategy,is wrong.
All that you are doing is hiding the real cost of providing advise and forcing up fee’s which will mean even less people will be able to get access to professional Insurance advise.

The model will be scaled down Insurance advise which does not do what it is meant to do and that is to look at a persons assets, liabilities,Income and expenditures,then formulate appropriate Insurance to cover the clients present and future needs.

Comment on Industry Disagrees Over Extent of FoFA Job Losses by Mark

Mark — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 02:16:06 +0000

Financial Planning is moving toward a fee for service profession. Just like Solicitors and Accoutants, the more affluent the client, the more likely they will be to pay fees for advice. The rest of the population will get scaled advice at a low fee. You know the old saying - “you only get what you pay for”

Comment on Industry Disagrees Over Extent of FoFA Job Losses by David Millard

David Millard — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 02:13:28 +0000

It doesn’t matter whether tens of thousands or a few thousand jobs are lost, (although I would tend to believe the AFA and AMP over Rice Warner whose views I believe are tainted by ISN input)no jobs should be lost because of implementing reforms that are not required.

As a result of the increased costs to both adviser firms and clients, Advisers will resort to providing ’scaled advice’ or ‘no advice’. This means that many people will miss out on the advice that they should be receiving(won’t pay for it)and the Government and Regulators have once again, shot themselves in the foot!!!!

Comment on Low Demand for Risk Advisers in 2012 by PPeter Steele

PPeter Steele — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 01:51:57 +0000

Can we get to the nub of the matter here and stop pussy footing around on what the real problem is facing our industry. Nothing is going to improve our situation on little bit whilst this government remains in power, An idealogically driven agenda to bring about a one size fits all scheme administered by the banks and their salaried clerks will see the demise of our industry as it exists unless we can find a way to end the madness that is the current Labor government. If you can’t grasp that notion, you haven’t been reading the paoers or watching the news.

Comment on Industry Disagrees Over Extent of FoFA Job Losses by Marj

Marj — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 01:51:54 +0000

Of course the government lackey’s are going to play things down - unfortunatly the proof will be in the eating but by that time many excellent caring professionals will have gone.

Comment on Industry Disagrees Over Extent of FoFA Job Losses by Hank Gilmore

Hank Gilmore — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 01:50:09 +0000

What cloud do Rice Warner live on. predicting out to 2026. That is as bad as a planner Predicting a telephone number retirement figure over the same period. I wonder if they have any concern for the families of those already employed in the advise business who will be either retrenched or sacked as their current employers go under due to FOFA.

Comment on Low Demand for Risk Advisers in 2012 by Alan

Alan — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:12:56 +0000

Totally agree with your sentiments Brad.
Low demand for risk advisers is not one bit surprising.
What with the consolidation of practices, people leaving the industry not wanting to put up with the FOFA nonesense, saturation advertising on TV for consumers to do it themselves and the general lack of desire by the underinsured public to do anything about their risk protection, is it any wonder.
Then with the brave new world of so called ‘opt in’ even more advisers will be opting out.
How will that help to make people more aware of what we can offer and provide the advice that is so badly needed? the What good will that do

Comment on Low Demand for Risk Advisers in 2012 by Jeremy Wright

Jeremy Wright — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 04:46:55 +0000

At last I have read an article that reiterates what I have been expressing for over a year. In a breifing to the Parliamentary Joint Committee,AMP has said 25,000 jobs will be lost as a consequence of FOFA in it’s current drafting, for little gain to the people these changes are meant to benefit.
We should thank AMP for their honesty, as AMP has more to gain with it’s size and market share if FOFA went through unopposed.
It is refreshing that a big player has had the strength of character to stand up for the smaller adviser groups and individuals who work hard and honestly to help their clients through hard financial times and other bigger players could build a more loyal following if they did the same.

Comment on Low Demand for Risk Advisers in 2012 by Brad

Brad — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 04:04:11 +0000

The fact that the level of employment is staying the same is not ‘No effect’, it is in fact a very negative effect because it means that the industry is full of uncertainty and not moving forward. The reality is any new measure becomes a cost burden to this industry. The FOFA measures that make growth of the industry stagnate is incredibly negative, particularly for the small player. I suppose that is what the ‘banks and industry funds’ have hoped for. A ‘Vanilla’ product world with salaried slaves where the banks & I.F.’s rake in billions for doing sweet FA. Congratualtions government & FOFA, you have succeeded in creating another corporate ‘monopoly’ of the colluding overpaid bankers.
Yipee