The report, titled Financial advice: What consumers really think, found that 25 per cent of consumers who had recently received financial advice wanted more guidance around SMSFs.
Around 50 per cent of financial advice customers also wanted advice on retirement income planning, while around 45 per cent wanted guidance on growing their superannuation, highlighting the potential value for accountants in establishing a referral partnership with advice businesses to tap into this demand.
Within this group of consumers who had seen a financial adviser, 45 per cent chose their adviser based on their level of experience, while about 43 per cent chose them based on their ability to understand the consumer’s personal goals.
An additional 43 per cent selected their adviser as they were someone the consumer was comfortable talking to.
However, demand for SMSF advice was not limited to those who had seen a financial planner, with 15 per cent of the broader consumer population also indicating a desire for guidance around self-managed funds.
This broader group selected their adviser based primarily on their reputation (38 per cent), their experience (41 per cent) and their ability to talk to the consumer in a way they could understand (36 per cent).
Across all respondent groups, the majority indicated that the adviser would need at least five to 10 years in the industry to be trustworthy, the report said.
Accountants, which are less qualified than I am as a financial planner, don’t go through the same complaint system – which is why there are less complaints. It’s like comparing chocolate and watermelon.
Also financial planners HAVE to provide advice in the best interest of a client as opposed to an accountant who thinks that the clients best interest is to have an SMSF fully invested in cash just in case the market ever crashes again.
Any accountant operating outside of their indemnity insurance will have NO protection if they provide inappropriate advice. Your PI does NOT cover financial advice! Whilst ASIC may not have aggressively pursued this, it will only take a court case or two and things will change. Why risk your livelihood? If you want to give advice, get licensed. Only then will you have indemnity.
Agreed there is no PI – But the chance of an accountant getting taken to court is significantly less than a AFSL Accountant getting taken too the kangaroo court of AFCA.
Until ASIC / ATO / SMSFA or anyone actually starts busting zero AFSL compliance SMSF Accounting advice then illegal advice will continue.
As a licensed financial planner I want to give more SMSF advice, however it is easier to refer them to an unlicensed accountant who does not need to complete the 20 hours of compliance that adds nothing to the client’s understanding of what is happening.
Pretty true situation.
And ASIC / ATO have still yet to bust 1 single accountant for all the previous masses amounts of illegal AFSL advice under the old Accountants Exemption.
And even without the Accountants Exemption there is still a truck load of illegal / zero AFSL compliance advice provided by accounts – mind you i think that it has reduced a little but again ASIC / ATO has not busted 1 single Accountant for the zero AFSL compliance advice. NOT 1 !!!!!!!
Maybe there are less accountants providing illegal advice than you think.
I can give you a list of 10, it’s the same list I’ve given ASIC.
Ahhhhh, the beauty of educated accountants who provide advice in the best interests of their clients. Significantly limits the complaints to the regulators. Well apart from those from financial planners who are miffed at missing out on their next trail……
Strategic Advice is far less likely to get complaints compared to Investment Advice. And given the complaint has to go via a costly court process rather than a extremely client friendly and free Kangaroo court of AFCA, that would be a significant part of the lack of complaints.