AIOFP asks, please take notice of these market developments.

A very famous truism from Sir Winston Churchill was ‘those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it…’, this outcome is now facing the Adviser Profession at a critical time.

Attached here is a November 2016 press release from then Minister Kelly O’Dwyer thanking the FSC, FPA, AFA for their cooperation with advocating for the LIF Legislation that later included supporting FASEA and the banning of Grandfathered Revenue. An overall disaster for the Adviser Profession but a great outcome for the Financial Institutions who in 2014 wanted Financial Adviser numbers culled in preparation for the Digital, Robo, AI consumer direct world where Advisers were ‘in the way’ and considered pests.

Thankfully, they got that emphatically wrong.

The FSC essentially hoodwinked the gullible FPA/AFA at the time to ‘play in the Canberra corridors of power’ to support legislation that went against the wishes of their members, that’s why neither entity no longer exists. It looks like the FSC has pulled the same card with the large dealer groups who have joined them as members.

The FSC are brilliant cashed up strategists thanks to their majority funding sourced from the Institutional sector, they are the most successful political advocates by a long way BUT unfortunately their victories are in favour of Financial Institutions NOT Financial Advisers. This dangerous reality is a concept the large Dealer Groups fail to recognise, it seems they now see themselves as ‘financial institutions’ with Adviser welfare a distant second consideration. Essentially Adviser political capital is being trashed in Canberra by the FSC and then used against the sector.

Historical events clearly indicate the Adviser Profession cannot afford to have the FSC representing Adviser interests in Canberra, but it is happening again!

The recent ASIC Report 833 looking into the Trustee ‘gate keeper’ obligations on platforms were solely represented by the FSC [appointed by ASIC] as these platforms are their members, BUT no consideration was given to the fact that any decisions directly affects Financial Adviser business models and their clients who placed them there in the first place. The FSC also worked with ASIC to develop the Standard 31 Wrap, Super Platform, Trustee and Adviser Governance Principles which kept out Adviser Associations despite again directly impacting Adviser business models. This should not be happening.

We suspect the FSC would be suggesting in Canberra they can represent Adviser interests because they have circa 3,000 Advisers in the 9 large Dealer groups who are their members.

These events are clear evidence the FSC are working against the best interests of Advisers and their clients as they are naturally and profoundly conflicted with the platforms as members. Furthermore, the 9 Large Dealer groups are captives of the FSC and showing no signs of acting in their AR’s best interests. This is yet another direct link between how the Adviser Profession is currently being treated by the platform/trustee fraternity and the influence of the FSC.

We will be pointing out to both ASIC and the Minister that the FSC has the Dealer Group corporate entity as their member NOT the Advisers who happen to be licensed to them.

We encourage these circa 3,000 Advisers to demand separation from the FSC or they will find other independent licensing options, the Profession is facing a slippery slope into irrelevance and a return to total Institutionalised domination if these events are not countered.

Finally, just in case you did not know, the only positive Adviser friendly piece of legislation in the last 20 years has been the Experienced Provider Pathway which saved the careers of 4,580 individuals, this was devised and lobbied by the AIOFP. Only the FSC can claim other legislation success but unfortunately, it has been detrimental to the Adviser Profession.