What is it about financial advice that many people devalue it compared with other forms of professional advice? I recently went to a dermatologist for a check on some sun spots. When he heard about this newsletter, we spent 20 minutes on his portfolio and investing. Then 15 minutes on my sun spots. I thought we were about even but I paid him $250 for the honour of his time.
Imagine the reverse where a dermatologist goes to see a financial adviser. Is there any chance they would spend more time examining the adviser's sun spots than the doctor's financial plan? No, the doctor would make an appointment in his surgery and bill accordingly. I've experienced similar discussions with lawyers and architects.
I wonder what the Royal Commission's Kenneth Hayne does for financial advice, because he does not value it highly enough. For example, he says on page 119 of the Final Report:
"I do not believe that the practice of giving financial advice is yet a profession ... For some time now, a financial adviser has been something between a salesperson and a professional adviser. The industry has moved from scandal to scandal, causing financial harm to clients, and damaging public confidence in financial advice."
As I read through a hard copy of the Final Report, another highlight hit me. Kenneth Hayne's interpretation of the 'sole purpose test' limits the ability of an adviser to charge fees through a super fund, which is a common way of covering the cost of financial advice. This may redefine where some financial advice is heading and less people will receive advice. Are advisers too shell shocked to argue about this?
The sole purpose test requires that super can only be used to provide benefits for a member's retirement. Sounds simple, but how do funds justify giving members frequent flyer points? Adrian Urquhart wants a consistent approachbut regulators seem surprisingly unconcerned.
We like a good debate, and this week we check 'marketplace lending', sometimes called 'peer-to-peer' lending. It's a rapidly growing part of the market as investors look for alternatives to bonds and term deposits. John O'Brien advises investors to watch for the early stages of such innovations, while Daniel Foggo explains the protective mechanisms in the structures.
Aidan Geysen worries that the focus on dividends, especially in the franking credit debate, is overwhelming the need to think about total returns, while Brendan Ryan explains the new Pension Loans Scheme now it is open to far more people than welfare pensioners.
The franking credit debate remains as lively as ever, and Cuffelinks is clarifying as many issues as possible. John Kalkman describes the social pact that led to today's structure.
This week's White Paper from NAB/nabtrade is their hybrid pricing report. Given the value of hybrids in the portfolios of many of our readers, it's worth checking this report regularly for spreads, opportunities and price movements. The hybrid market often offers pricing anomolies.
Graham Hand, Managing Editor
For a PDF version of this week’s newsletter articles, click here.