Skip to main content

Welcome to The Moran Principle

Hi there, this blog is a series of short essays relating to Financial Planning for you to consider and comment on. With the huge changes that are going on within our industry at present, I thought this would be an appropriate means to get some dialogue going. It doesn't seem that many in the media are interested in this - let's see how it goes.
Labels:

Comments

  1. Paul ZApril 28, 2010 at 11:46 PM

    Here here. Add to the insurance argument level premiums v stepped, most, if not all retail and industry super funds have stepped premiums whereas, especially for younger poeple, level could be more appropriate. Another issue to consider is the employees of industry super fund who give this advice I assume get paid a salary, paid for by the fund which means all members are paying for advice that only a few get - how is that different to an adviser who gets a commission from all clients but may only speak to a few of them. I say all call centre staff should charge a fee for the advice they provide general or otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Paul MoranApril 29, 2010 at 2:43 AM

    Interestingly, some research done by an industry fund showed that their members were happy to pay up to $500 for a financial plan - and that virtually none of them took up the offer for an 'independent plan' from IFFP because it was too expensive! This is the result of pretending that advice can be offered for free. Thanks for the comment - hope you follow the blog in the future.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

ASIC fails shadow shopping - again!

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. ASIC has trotted out its regular review of the 'quality of advice' survey by randomly selecting 64 pieces of advice from around Australia - and extrapolating the results to suggest that Advice is not very professional. Out of the 64 advisers 'checked' (out of a pool of authorised representatives of 15,000), they are able to judge just 2 as 'good'. My issue with this is that the judgment is based purely on the written document and does not provide any guidance as to the real advice offered. ASIC has yet to come up with a suitable methodology of evaluating financial advice and so we seem stuck with this flawed approach. We don't see ASIC broadcasting that 1/3 of their sample of written plans needed to be improved - we see a headline that 1/3 of financial advice is poor. Perhaps under the new limited advice regime, where no written plan is required for many of the guinea pigs sent out to evaluate, we will score f...
1 comment
Read more

Which way are you going to go with the FPA proposals?

Hi - long time no speak... I was wondering which way people were going to go regarding the FPA proposals to limit memberships to CFP's or AFP's (those who are enrolled in the CFP program)? I guess you will get some idea of my views on this, but I am worried that there will be a lot of vested interest in maintaining the status quo. After all, when a body such as the FPA transitions from an industry body to a professional association it carries a lot of baggage. There surely can be no doubt that something has to be done about our reputations as financial planners and advisers, and the FPA is the logical body to be at the front of this. However, the lack of clear action in the past has left many wondering if they are up to it. My position is that until the proposed changes are made, the FPA would not have the credibility to be able to actively lobby our position. Most of us know that most of our clients like to deal with us. In fact, most are strong advocates for us when anyon...
Post a Comment
Read more

Industry funds agenda exposed - world domination

This week, an interview in Investor Daily helped to shed some light on the agenda of the industry super network. The head of the organisation clearly indicated that once they have sorted out financial planners and FOFA, they will be coming after self managed super funds. "I tell you one thing: once we get this commission thing [FOFA] out of the way, we are coming after self-managed super, not because we want to burden it in any way, but we want them to be on the same footing as industry funds," is the quote used in the article and attributed to Garry Weaven. (see http://www.investordaily.com.au/11846.htm ) This is of concern on so many levels I hardly know where to start - but here goes... Mr. Weaven clearly thinks that "this commission thing" is his problem to solve - not the regulator or government. Since when does one product provider in the market get to increase their market powers by changing (setting) government policy to the detriment of other providers. ...
1 comment
Read more