The move was indicated by the Practice Development Group (PDG) on Wednesday, a body comprising a board of Godfrey Pembroke peer-elected advisers, elected to represent the interests of advisers in the network.
The advisers will transition to a Godfrey Pembroke branded licence under IOOF at completion.
The gain is a win for IOOF, as it strives to convince the self-employed MLC advisers to transition over to any IOOF brand of their liking. Some have already indicated they will not be joining the wealth behemoth.
Following the MLC acquisition announcement, the PDG had been tasked by its members to evaluate if IOOF’s proposal would be a suitable fit for the group, conducting due diligence, as well as reviewing alternative licensee solutions.
The PDG stated its objective had been to find an “adviser led” solution, with its members signalling a strong desire to retain the Godfrey Pembroke community and for the representative body to remain intact.
The body had surveyed member firms, reporting the majority, including all members of its board, had indicated their intention to transition to a new license under IOOF.
PDG chair Bernard Schortinghuis said IOOF had been “open to considering new ways to approach an adviser-led licensee solution, tailored to the complex and high-net-worth space”.
“The new licensee offer, which is considered to be unique in the market, has been designed collaboratively with IOOF,” Mr Schortinghuis said.
The advisers will reportedly operate under their current frameworks, aiming for a less disruptive transition and the current PDG structure will continue.
There will also be a non-executive board seat for a PDG director on the AFSL.
“IOOF was the only licensee to offer this which was considered to be a key factor in ensuring that the dialogue between the PDG and licensing board is fluid and transparent,” PDG director Henry Mantzouratos said.
“Often a criticism of large institutional licensees is that the voice of the adviser is missing when key strategic and operational decisions are made. The AFSL board seat addresses this as the advisers are represented at the licensee board level.”
IOOF have one of the broadest APL’s in the industry and are committed to financial advice. Haters are going to hate.
The APL may be broad, but advisers who want low dealer fees, lots of dealer support, and a light touch from dealer compliance, will know which products to choose. No dealer group is sustainable without inhouse product revenue.
Rubbish. IOOF are no angels, but the suggestions you’re making about the ethics of the advisers there are defamatory
To all the naysayers, what do you care? If you don’t like it, don’t stay with or join GP… And if you think it’s bad for them, lap it up, now you have a competitive advantage ; )
So much whining goes on here… Just focus on your own clients & business.
Vertical integration is bad for every adviser. It diminishes consumer trust. It encourages regulatory persecution. That’s why independent advisers care.
These advisers had an opportunity to leave behind institutional ownership and yet they take the cheapest subsidized option. These same advisers turn around and wonder why we’re so heavily regulated, the term financial planner is mud…why Standard 3 of FASEA is an issue and why planners will continue to be the kicking post for every large insto….You may have gotten a great deal but you sold out your peers and Australians.
Once institutionalised always institutionalised ……. perfect opportunity to leave the vertical integration model and GP takes the easy option …. no different to MLC, your clients will suffer in the long run whilst IOOF will use their scale for their own benefit and not your clients (which is what we should all demand)
Certainly a step back for GP. What due diligence have they undertaken?????
About 3 months worth.