Print Post Approved PP255003/00299
Vol.26 No.13 | April 12, 2012 | $6.95 INC GST
The publication for the personal investment professional
www.moneymanagement.com.au
SMSF AUDITOR REGISTRATION: Page 12 | EUROPEAN AUSTERITY: Page 20
Separation of product from advice vital By Tim Stewart and Andrew Tsanadis UNALIGNED dealer groups cannot establish in-house funds management businesses and hope to maintain their independence, according to Tupicoffs partner Neil Kendall. “There’s no way you can claim to be independent and run a product provider at the same time,” said Kendall. “If you’re running an advice business and someone comes and sits in front of you and you know you lose money unless you sell them in-house products, you can’t expect client-focused outcomes,” he said. The comments come after Mercer head of wealth management Brian Long suggested that larger independent dealer groups could retain their mass affluent clients by running their own multimanager funds. “There’s an opportunity to build, own or operate your own suit of products,” said Long. He added that the multi-manager funds
would be catered to the client base of the dealer group, thereby satisfying the ‘best interests’ test. “As a dealer group you can still chase down high-net-worth clients, but suddenly you’ve got a solution for mass affluent clients that is scalable, meets the ‘best interests’ duty, and also creates a revenue stream for the dealer group,” he said. Boutique Financial Planning Principals’ Group president Claude Santucci said the model could well be viable, but he was doubtful the dealer group could continue to claim it offered independent financial advice. “I can’t see how you could be called a financial planner if you’re just a product distributor,” he said. “Independence is very important. We’ve taken a good step towards that [with FOFA]. If you take Mercer’s advice you’re probably taking a step backwards again,” he said. Shadforth Financial Group (SFG) head Nick Bedding said his group would be open
Carrying the cost of FOFA By Mike Taylor
THE financial ser vices industr y may be obliged to dig deeper to fund the implementation of the Government's Future of Financial Advice (FOFA) changes as well as its Stronger Super reform agenda. With the Government currently entering the final stages of formulating the May Budget, senior executives within both the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) have acknowledged the regulators will have to manage a heavier workload over the next 18 months. Continued on page 3
Neil Kendall to running its own funds management business “if we felt we could do it better than the people we’re outsourcing to”. “If you’re capable of doing that inhouse, then that shouldn’t compromise
[the ‘best interests’ duty] or your independence,” he said. One of the few unaligned dealer groups to actually operate the model advocated by Long is Professional Investment Services (PIS), whose parent company Centrepoint Alliance also owns a funds management arm (comprising of All Star Funds and Ventura Investment Management). All Star managing director Kate Mulligan said the advisers at PIS can maintain their independence because the funds management and the financial planning arms of the business are completely separate. “We have to convince the PIS advisers that our products are suitable for their clients – just like any other product. All Star and Ventura have separate compliance systems and different people,” Mulligan said. In addition, new All Star funds don’t automatically go onto PIS approved product lists, she added. “My products are subject to the requirements of any other fund manager – I have to earn a spot,” Mulligan said.
ETFs
The perfect storm THE performance of many asset classes remains uninspiring at best and disappointing at worst. Investors are increasingly expressing preference for low-cost vehicles – as well as transparency in both product and pricing – creating a breeding ground for exchange traded funds (ETFs). Despite coming from a low base, the growth rate of the Australian ETF sector in recent years was enormous, with up to three quarters of funds coming from retail investors. In Australia the first fixed income ETF was launched at the end of March 2012, enabling investors to properly diversify their portfolio solely using ETFs. But the industry has warned some “back to basics’ education is required
for both clients and financial advisers on the asset class, due to challenges in gaining meaningful direct exposure to fixed income. Industry experts believe it is the implementation that is the greatest departure from what advisers might be accustomed to with managed funds. The Australian ETF market might not remain at its current level of simplicity, as there may be a place for synthetic ETFs where the underlying exposure cannot be delivered in any other way. However, the success of this product might not come easily, as negative press resulted in a bad year for the sector globally. For more on ETFs, turn to page 14.