According to a statement, Mr Hartzer’s comments in The Australian Financial Review on the benefits of financial advice are misleading and fail to differentiate between product advice and advice unaligned to product.
Certainty Advice Group managing director Jim Stackpool said that no bank in the financial world has successfully built an advice offering without any real or perceived product conflict.
“Banks’ brands will continue to be undermined until they clarify their message about their financial advice offer,” Mr Stackpool said.
“Mr Hartzer must realise sooner rather than later that their great brands will remain at risk whilst they continue to get this wrong.”
FinBiz Advisers’ principal, Annette Pulbrook, views Mr Hartzer’s comments as an unwise brand strategy for the big banks.
“Banks have successfully confused Australians for years,” she said.
“They fail to differentiate between product advice and pure advice unaligned to product.
“One day their boards will realise their brands will continue to be damaged until they revert to their true skill – being good bankers with great products.”
Bravium principal Scott Farmer said banks have never made any money from financial advice.
“They only ever make money when they sell products aligned to their advice,” he said. “The sooner they return to pure banking the better for everyone.”
Having worked in Banking Financial Planning arms for many years(Westpac)and then with non banking firms I can assure Westpac’s CEO that he has no idea what’s going on in their FP arm.
Why do they still have single premium targets?
Why do they still have risk targets?
Still no recognition of time spend and demanded from review clients, sell, sell,sell targets only.
Very little genuine “fee for advice” only – regardless of product sold
Jim is spot on, thanks Jim – Mr Hartzer is so far from the reality that I for one have no confidence.
I cannot agree with Mr hartzer. A CBA adviser was told to charge the highest fee he could for a rollover advice. Of course in house product. Price of advice in this example is notfixed nor uniform within the branch but based on what the client will stand. Hardly a measure of lower cost. It would be a different world if banks actually got their business offering right.
Whether it is banks, industry funds or insurance companies (owned by banks or not) all say the same thing.
Lets face it, selling is selling!
Everyone knows banks tell lies!
Mr Hartzer please explain why you have offered a graduate with very little understanding of financial planning a role in your group to provide limited advice over the phone. We offered this graduate a role in our firm with an opportunity to learn financial planning with no selling until he had a strong grasp of the concepts we advise on. Despite the fact that he did not understand super,TTR/allocated pensions,age pension or insurance he rejected our offer to take up your offer which paid $10K more.There is no other way to explain this as an incentive to flog your own product which is the source of all the problems in our industry.It also makes a mockery of degree qualifications. They mean nothing without proper on the job mentoring.
Wow, Jim Stackpool – there’s a name that’s been around for a while. Well said Jim. But same needs to be said for industry funds. It’s all about selling product – stop calling people who work within these organisations financial advisers as they are not. Maybe call them product sales people? Sure they talk TTR but they charge same as what someone unaligned would so the advice isn’t comparable but the public don’t understand that. They think banks are safe or industry fund advertises on TV – I want to go up the escalator!
Separate to the conflicts issue raised by Mr Stackpool and with which I agree, in the many examples of bank advice I have seen not cheaper and are not more thorough. Not sure where Mr Hartzer got his understanding.
The most sensible thing I have read about banks for some time