‘Mad as hell’: Adviser argues against dilution of protected terms

Dr Paul Moran, principal of Moran Partners Financial Planning, has taken to LinkedIn to argue that the qualified adviser label breaches the restrictions over the use of the terms “financial adviser” and “financial planner”, which are protected under section 923C of the Corporations Act 2001.

As outlined in s293C, it is a contravention of the act if:

• The first person is not a relevant provider.
• The first person is a provisional relevant provider.
• The first person is a limited-service time-sharing adviser (a relevant provider who only provides advice about time-share schemes).

“Paragraph (8) describes the expressions that are proscribed – essentially anything that looks, sounds or may be interpreted as implying financial advice or financial planning,” Moran said.

“According to the ASIC info sheet 277 – ‘Personal advice’, when referred to in the context of a relevant provider, means personal advice provided to retail clients on relevant financial products. Of course, this includes superannuation, investments and personal insurance.

“Paragraph (9)b suggests that the Minister (which one) can determine other words or phrases specifically proscribed under this legislation, but it appears that these words (Qualified Financial Adviser for example) will still need to meet the requirements.”

Given that a relevant provider must either meet the educational requirements or meet the conditions of the 10-year experience pathway, Moran said it would rule out a qualified adviser.

“By even contemplating a term such as ‘Qualified Financial Adviser’ for a person who patently does not meet the requirements, is the Minister (which one) proposing to throw out the proscribed terms as outlined above,” he said.

“If not, surely this suggestion would fail on a legal challenge – or at least should be legally challenged – to ensure that the hard yards put in by ‘relevant providers’ is not completely undermined.”

Moran added that while he believes Australia “leads the world” when it comes to the provision of holistic advice and the “adoption of the true sense of the six-step financial planning process”, measures over recent years have beaten advisers down.

“Retrospective educational standards where a new standard of education is imposed on existing practitioners in a way unheard of in any other profession before,” he said.

“Outrageous fee consent processes where the regulator refuses to implement a standard process across all providers and allows 40+ different forms to be required based on each individual product provider and their interpretation and systems.

“Largely unworkable professional year requirements given the small practice nature of our professional environment. If the professional year was able to be completed in conjunction with the education process and not commence at the end of it, we might get a better outcome. This would allow for students to work part-time in practices and ‘earn’ hours of experience.”

Coupled with compliance burdens such as the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort, which Moran has previously told ifa should be boycotted, have left him “mad as hell”.