- Agree (77%)
- Disagree (21%)
- Not sure (2%)
The perceived absence of a level playing field around the ability to serve the straight-forward financial information needs of Australians forms the basis of our latest poll.
What has been identified as an inequity that exists between financial advisers and social media influencers has been called out this week by the TAA, which asserts that well-qualified, experienced, professional advisers have to jump through so many more regulatory hoops than finfluencers to provide similar information and education (see: Level Playing Field Call…).
The TAA acknowledges and welcomes the role that finfluencers can and do play in delivering financial information and education – especially for younger consumers and for those without the financial capacity to afford to pay for financial advice, as long as they adhere to ASIC’s guidelines. Rather, the association’s issue rests in the apparent inequality that it says exists in the regulatory burden weighing on the shoulders of qualified advisers in delivering bite-size and simple advice when compared with that required of social media influencers to perform the same task.
Perhaps the outcome of this poll is a ‘no-brainer’, namely that financial advisers and finfluencers should be subject to the same regulatory rigour when delivering simple and straight-forward financial information. But you might see this issue in a different light, and believe there should exist a higher bar that authorised representatives should always be required to meet, even when the value of the service extends only to the provision of simple and straight-forward financial information.
Tell us what you think and we’ll report back next week…
It has been a constant source of frustration that licensed Financial Advisers are held in a vice of Regulation, while it appears every one else can do and say what they want with little impost.
It is common sense that information is different to advice, though the hoops Financial Advisers need to jump through to cover themselves under the maze of Regulatory restrictions, makes other Industries seem to work in another world of, “no care and no responsibility.”
If Politicians, Public servants and all Private Businesses were held to the same Regulatory standards and requirements that Licensed Financial Planners are held to, Australia would grind to a halt.
There will always be a need for Laws and Regulations to keep everyone honest and on the right track.
Unfortunately, our track builders are Lawyers, Public servants and Politicians who think having an easy to follow, straight line to the destination is an abomination that must be avoided at all cost.
What a ridiculous question. You’re comparing apples and gorillas here.
The first problem is that financial advisers expect some sort of remuneration (fee or commission) for the advice provided which ultimately comes from a transaction involving the client. Influencers receive royalties for providing valuable content to social media platforms and the revenue is entirely independent from any transaction.
Secondly, many articles on this website discuss the value of the adviser-client relationship. The adviser can repeat the nature of the advice over and over again to the client until they are blue in the face, but ultimately the one-on-one relationship of the advice (vs the one-to-many relationship of the internet) can and will be perceived by clients to be specific to the questions that are being asked by client. This should raise the standard of care for the adviser, especially if they wish to be remunerated for the advice provided (and if the industry would like to be considered a profession).
Otherwise, why not set up a youtube channel and direct clients to browse until they find the answers they are looking for? There is nothing stopping an adviser doing this (except their remuneration model).
Comments are closed.