{"id":54382,"date":"2021-03-01T13:16:09","date_gmt":"2021-03-01T03:16:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/?p=54382"},"modified":"2024-10-30T08:45:20","modified_gmt":"2024-10-29T22:45:20","slug":"time-to-stop-calling-it-advice-when-its-not-taa","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/2021\/03\/01\/time-to-stop-calling-it-advice-when-its-not-taa\/","title":{"rendered":"Time to Stop Calling it ‘Advice’ When it\u2019s Not – TAA"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Advisers Association<\/a> says now that the message seems to be filtering through to Australians that it’s illegal for someone to call themselves a \u2018financial adviser\u2019 or \u2018financial planner\u2019 when they are not, it’s time to address financial product information being called \u2018advice\u2019 when it is not.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe believe that terms such as \u2018general advice\u2019, \u2018intra-fund advice\u2019 and \u2018robo-advice\u2019 are typically financial product information services, and it is therefore potentially misleading and deceptive to call them anything else,\u201d says TAA CEO, Neil Macdonald<\/strong> in a statement.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn the interests of consumer education and transparency, it is time to call spades, spades.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Neil Macdonald…TAA is calling for the term \u2018intra-fund advice\u2019 to be renamed ‘intra-fund information’<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

TAA is calling for the term \u2018intra-fund advice\u2019 to be renamed ‘intra-fund information’ and \u2018robo-advice\u2019 to be termed ‘robo-information’.<\/p>\n

“Our preference is to remove the term \u2018general advice\u2019. When FSR was being introduced \u2018Financial Product Information\u2019 was proposed, which is a more accurate description,” Macdonald says.<\/p>\n

…true personal financial advice has to consider and meet the client’s best interests obligation…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

He adds that as those in the financial advice profession know, true personal financial advice has to consider and meet the client’s best interests obligation and includes:<\/p>\n

    \n
  • An extensive process which involves investigation of the client\u2019s needs<\/li>\n
  • Detailed analysis of their circumstances<\/li>\n
  • Research into the most suitable products and services to meet those needs<\/li>\n
  • Development of a strategy<\/li>\n
  • The production of a statement of advice that outlines solutions to help them meet those needs<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    \u201cThis extensive process is not followed by those providing general advice, intra-fund advice or robo-advice. It is essential that those financial product services are renamed, so that they are not mistaken by consumers for personal financial advice.\u201d<\/p>\n

    Macdonald says renaming the terms would also help level the playing field for financial advisers.<\/p>\n

    \u201cAt present advisers are subject to much stricter rules and disclosure requirements than those providing financial product information and the FASEA code makes it hard to provide scoped or scaled advice,\u201d he adds.<\/p>\n

    \u201cIn cases where financial advisers are simply providing financial product information then, in order to level the playing field, they should receive the same concessions as other financial product information providers.\u201d<\/p>\n

    He says this would enable more Australians to get their straightforward questions about a product quickly, simply and easily answered.<\/p>\n

    TAA’s call for clarity around the terms was included in its recent submission to ASIC’s affordable advice review.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    The Advisers Association says now that the message seems to be filtering through to Australians that it’s illegal for someone to call themselves a \u2018financial adviser\u2019 or \u2018financial planner\u2019 when they are not, it’s time to address financial product information being called \u2018advice\u2019 when it is not. \u201cWe believe that terms such as \u2018general advice\u2019, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":24,"featured_media":54388,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[282,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-54382","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-associations","category-compliance-regulation"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54382","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/24"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=54382"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54382\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/54388"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=54382"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=54382"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=54382"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}