Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 488

Wealth management reimagined

The financial advice sector is experiencing a form of market failure. That is, market demand for the type of advice now favoured by the industry - comprehensive personal retirement planning advice - is severely limited by the cost of supplying it, often exceeding $5,000 for an initial engagement and $3,000 in annual service fees thereafter.

It is only in wealthy pre-retirees with complex retirement planning needs where the service that the financial advice sector offers currently intersects with a willingness and capacity to pay. If one were to assume this cohort represents 20% of those approaching retirement each month, this equates to only 4,000-odd prospective clients for the nation’s 16,000-odd advisers to engage with and compete for on a monthly basis.

It should be apparent that the entire financial advice sector chasing this same, small addressable market is not a recipe for organic growth.

What might an alternative future for Australian wealth management look like? And what are the conditions to facilitate it? The following are suggestions that we believe will assist the financial advice sector to regain lost ground and, more importantly, create the foundations for sustained growth into the future.

Applying the Tinbergen Principle to financial advice

The Tinbergen Principle is named after Dutch economist Jan Tinbergen, the first economist to be awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics. In essence the principle states that in addressing complex economic dilemmas, sustainable solutions require as many instruments as there are policy objectives.

Which is a fancy way of saying “one size does not fit all”.

For financial advice, there is one dominant ‘instrument’ being bluntly applied to the varied advice needs of Australians of varying demographics, socioeconomic circumstances, financial literacy, engagement preferences and price point sensitivities.

This instrument is comprehensive pre-retirement personal advice, encapsulated in an unwieldy Statement of Advice (SOA), implemented via an adviser-directed investment/super solution, with ongoing fee arrangements still dominated by the percentage of ‘Funds Under Advice’ (FUA) model.

The advice sector could continue with this approach, and it would almost certainly perpetuate the issues currently constraining advice accessibility, as well as its own growth prospects. Or it can choose a different path.

Matching advice models to consumer needs

There needs to be a recognition that Australians engage with the financial services sector across multiple decades in ways that shift over that time span. Their needs differ according to their life-stage, and forward-thinking advice models ought to be able to cater for these life-stage cohort preferences.

In addition, research into engagement preferences suggests that consumers have varied preferences for how they choose to engage with their finances, and a ‘traditional’ financial advice relationship with a financial adviser is only one option. 

The ASIC Financial Advice Report of 2019 found 31% of those surveyed said that they had received financial advice or guidance from family, friends, or colleagues, while 23% had done so from information found online.

Similarly, even when consumers become engaged with their finances, there are a range of preferences that extend beyond receiving financial advice and/or outsourcing complex financial decisions to an adviser.

At the High Net Worth end of the market, CBA research into SMSFs found that only 22% of survey respondents were ‘Coach Seekers’ and 13% ‘Outsourcers’, those more likely to engage with financial advice on an ongoing basis.

Quite remarkably, 30% described themselves as ‘Self-Directed Investors’ with a preference for a DIY approach toward financial decision making, while 35% were ‘Controllers’, eager to do things themselves, but open to some advice to support their decision-making. For these individuals, an online SMSF admin solution, coupled with a next-gen investment platform and some episodic advice from a Financial Adviser may be all that is required to meet their needs.

Right across the age and wealth spectrum, from Gen Z commencing their wealth journeys to wealthy Baby Boomers with sizable assets in their SMSF, the notion of ‘one-size-fits-all’ is no longer appropriate.

Technology to the fore

The rapid adoption of all things digital in daily life since the initial COVID lockdown of March 2020 points to the possibilities for advice productivity that is still untapped in the sector.

Workarounds to lockdown, such as online virtual advisor/client meetings, the rise of electronic signatures over ‘wet ink’ and the improvement of adviser/client interactivity within leading-edge investment platforms allow advisers to better leverage their time and resources.

These developments will not regress in a post-COVID world.

Rather, forward-thinking licensees and advice practices need to revisit the entirety of the FinTech and AdviceTech landscape to look for ongoing opportunities to increase prospect engagement and reduce the cost of advice provision.

One such example is the CRM, often considered the heart of any financial advice operation. Advice CRMs have been a slow work-in-progress since the 1990s, with the rise of server technology and the ubiquity of the internet leading to advances in CRM capabilities in the years since.

Yet the seamless integration of all the aspects of running an efficient financial advice practice, from prospect engagement to financial modelling to advice provision to the implementation of recommendations (possibly incorporating investment/platform account opening) to ongoing servicing and advice remains elusive.

Part of the reason is that advisers may not be using existing advice CRMs to their full capabilities. Also, the lack of integration between different advice technology systems means that data captured in one system may not flow freely into another to be leveraged for productivity gains.

The advancements in API usage, led by a host of FinTech start-ups over the past several years, represents a large and underappreciated opportunity for advisory groups to drive productivity upward while restraining, and possibly lowering, the cost of advice provision.

A host of novel FinTech applications, from robo-advice to next-gen investment platforms, have conclusively demonstrated that many aspects of traditional advice workflow can be automated to a large degree. AML/CTF client identification and compliance via API calls to relevant databases being only one such example. Automated account opening being another.

Legislative/policy interventions

While technology can help in increasing productivity, the opportunity to improve financial advice affordability and accessibility rests even more so with amendments to the legislative framework surrounding advice provision.

There is a reticence to sail outside the ‘safe harbour’ enshrined in the definition of best interest duty, with the ‘catch-all’ provision of Section 961B(2)(g) proving particularly problematic.

While this remains the case for personal financial product advice, risk averse compliance committees will continue to enforce advice workflows that preference costly comprehensive advice over less expensive, lighter touch scaled advice.

It is therefore hoped that the current inquiry by the Australian Law Reform Commission into Australia’s financial services legislation, including a review of key definitions such as ‘Financial Product Advice’ and ‘Retail’ v ‘Wholesale’ client definitions will yield recommendations for pragmatic changes to Chapter 7.7 of the Corporations Act 2001

Alternative models – Guidance and assistance

Finally, in respect of the Tinbergen Principle, there must be an acceptance that even with legislative relief, an abundant adaptation of AdviceTech and FinTech and all the goodwill the advice sector can muster, there will be a cohort of Australians who will still face barriers to accessing financial advice.

This may be due to a lack of financial literacy and proficiency in dealing with advisory professionals. It may be due to financial circumstances, with price inevitably being a barrier for some even were advice costs to fall over time. Or price may not be a barrier, it may simply be an individual preference to remain a ‘Controller’ or to continue with a ‘DIY’ strategy.

Whatever the reason, a well-rounded financial services sector would have a range of viable alternatives to attaining financial advice from a ‘traditional’ provider.

Robo-advice, while not anywhere near the penetration of the US or Asia, is one such example. Here consumers with more modest requirements can ‘self-serve’ within the confines of a regulated environment where choices are deliberately constrained to avoid consumer choice overload.

Next-generation investor-directed portfolio services (IDPS) where consumers can choose either a DIY experience or to have some guidance from a Financial Adviser are another such example.

These solutions point to a hybrid advice future, where the interaction between consumer and adviser might evolve along a spectrum over time, starting with a highly digital, near self-serve model and evolving toward a human-centric relationship as retirement approaches.

Beyond the constraints of the current legislative edifice, the concepts of ‘Guidance’ and ‘Assistance’ should be brought in from the cold to sit in between General/Personal Advice on the one hand and Factual Information on the other.

The recent Budget submission by Super Consumers Australia, in calling for a government-funded retirement guidance service in-line with the UK’s Money and Pension Service where consumers can gain access to impartial guidance on a range of retirement planning issues, points to a possibility.

The Melbourne University ‘FinFuture’ white paper of 2019 proceeded in much the same direction, calling for the establishment of a National Financial Wellbeing Agency that would be tasked with improving the financial wellbeing of the nation in aggregate.

These and other ideas need to sit alongside the push toward appropriate legislative relief and amendments spearheaded by the Levy Review and the ACLR Review, and the continued advancement of AdviceTech and FinTech into the fabric of the Australian financial advice sector.


Harry Chemay has more than two decades of experience across both wealth management and institutional asset consulting. An active participant within the wealth and superannuation space, Harry is a regular contributor to investment websites in Australia and overseas, writing on investing and financial planning. Brett Ebedes is a financial services industry consultant who specialises in working with and solving the business problems of financial services participants.

The full report "Australian Wealth Management at the Crossroads: Where to from here?", including detailed references and important disclaimer information, can be viewed here.


Anthony Asher
December 29, 2022

Technology does offer opportunities to make planning more efficient. Making ATO and other data available through the CDR would help. See

Paul Stokes
December 20, 2022

Technology is not the answer. It was a failure with digital mortgages and fails in financial advice. Financial advice and people’s finances are high touch activities.

Big Mike
December 18, 2022

After 40 years in the advice industry, I hear the same old rubbish from those People to line their own pockets. Oh you need technology, buy our system for $10,000 p.a , oh you need tablets , need paraplanners etc etc etc . What has this achieved now . less advisers to tackle an aeging population at an increased cost !!!... Just like the new Electric cars , solar panels , inverters , batteries , all milliknbaires and chinese companies to benefit from new Technology , less base load power ant a very expensive cost . No one can deny this . ASIC is useless , we asked them for a template SOA and they ran away !!! I complained to ASIC many times and they did nothing about shonky planners . Its simple , a 2 page fact find and a 2 page SOA outlining , fees and charges Total , commissions !!! and ongoing . Let then the punter to decide with no aligned advisers .

December 18, 2022

Why does it always seem that the 'answer' is technology? An answer usually pushed by consultants and businesses who offer this perfect 'solution'?

The cost of providing advice is directly linked to the level of red tape and compliance overhead and a snazzy app or website isn't going to change that.

Jan Mulder
December 15, 2022

The excessive use of ACRONYMS makes understanding what is written near impossible, especially for the elderly, effected by a degree of memory loss.

Russell (a veteran adviser)
December 14, 2022

You still appear to reflexively link 'advice' to the provision of a product. This needs to change.

Rob G
December 14, 2022

I so totally agree. Product creates bias. Advice needs to be free of bias.

Gavin Rogers
December 15, 2022

Even the Government regulator treats all advice as product-related, which it has to because that's how the Corps Act is set out. The main ASIC guide to licencing reqirements for advisers is RG175:
"RG 175 Licensing: Financial product advisers—Conduct and disclosure
This guide is for persons who provide financial product advice to retail clients, and their professional advisers (such as lawyers). It considers how certain conduct and disclosure obligations in Pt 7.7 and Div 2 of Pt 7.7A of the Corporations Act 2001 apply to the provision of financial product advice."
Note it is not "financial advice" but "financial product advice".

Jim Hennington - Actuary
December 22, 2022

@Gavin Rogers. I completely agree. The industry uses the abbreviation 'financial advice' whereas the Corps Act only focuses on 'financial PRODUCT advice'.

Over time the legislation for 'financial advice' has become less and less appropriate - because it
has not been broadened sufficiently in line with proper financial planning practices. A surprising
number of financial planning topics are not covered by the legislation.

Michael O'Hara
December 14, 2022

A simple question that still remains unanswered.

How does an individual get a simple answer to a simple question, at a cost relevant to the scale of the question?

The first answer is limiting liability for whoever provides the answer. Unlimited liability skews risk, which is a geometric cost escalator.

The second answer is clear and coherent legislative frameworks for the person providing help to work within. This helps cost the effort required for a compliant, retail-client-friendly response.

The third answer is adviser/provider freedom to provide answers within that framework free of restrictions on how or when they charge for their services.

The fourth answer is a clearly delineated hierarchy of advice providers so a person knows who the advice/ service provider works for. If you have an in house product or managed account, you work for your institution. You are the equivalent of an "agent" in the traditional sense. Simple as that. A person should be able to know where their adviser's priorities lay without having to be an Einstein.

The profession is still an industry. In part, because many of those wanting a profession do not understand the role of a profession in providing services to the community.

Advisors don't see themselves providing services to the community. They are themselves providing to their wealthy target demographic.


Leave a Comment:



Will roboadvice exterminate traditional advisers?

Five charts show predicaments facing financial advice

Work still needed to close the financial gender gap


Most viewed in recent weeks

The best strategy to build income for life

Owning quality, dividend-producing industrial shares is key to building a decent income stream. Here is an update on the long-term performance of industrial stocks against indices, listed property, and term deposits.

Are more taxes on super on the cards?

The Government's broken promise on tax cuts has prompted speculation about other promises that it may consider breaking. It's widely believed that super is lightly taxed and a prime candidate for special attention.

Lessons from the battery metals bust

The crash in lithium and nickel prices has left companies scrambling to cut production, billionaires red-faced, and investors wondering how a ‘sure thing’ went so wrong. There are plenty of lessons for everyone.

16 ASX stocks to buy and hold forever

In his recent shareholder letter, Warren Buffett mentions several stocks he expects Berkshire Hathaway will own indefinitely, including Occidental Petroleum. We look at ASX stocks that investors could buy and hold forever.

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 545 with weekend update

It’s troubling that practical skills like investing aren’t taught at schools as it leaves our children ill-equipped to build wealth, and more vulnerable to bad advice. Here are some suggestions to address the issue.

  • 1 February 2024

For the younger generation, we need to get real on tax

The distortions in our tax system have been ignored for too long, and we're now paying the price. It's time Australia got real and addressed the problems to prevent an even greater intergenerational tragedy.

Latest Updates


16 ASX stocks to buy and hold forever

In his recent shareholder letter, Warren Buffett mentions several stocks he expects Berkshire Hathaway will own indefinitely, including Occidental Petroleum. We look at ASX stocks that investors could buy and hold forever.

Investment strategies

Clime time: 10 charts on the outlook for major asset classes

The charts reveal that interest rates can't rise much further as Australian mortgage holders are under stress, bank dividends look solid, and the bond market is in flux because yields are being manipulated.


Phasing out cheques, and what will happen to cash?

Cheques and bank service, or the lack of, were major topics when I addressed a seniors’ group recently. The word had got out that the government was phasing out cheques, and many in the audience were feeling abandoned.


What financial risks do retirees face?

Treasury's consultation into the retirement phase of superannuation is generating a lot of interest. This submission to the consultation outlines the key financial risks to an individual’s standard of living in retirement.


Recession surprise may be in store for the US stock market

Markets are partying like it's 1999, but history suggests that US earnings and economic growth are vulnerable following an interest rate tightening cycle. Investors should prepare their portfolios accordingly.

Investment strategies

3 under the radar investment opportunities

The Magnificent Seven are hogging the headlines, yet there are plenty of growth opportunities elsewhere, at a fraction of the cost. Here are three stock ideas riding key areas of structural and cyclical change.


Why a quant approach can thrive in the age of passive investing

The rise of passive investing is unlikely to derail the value of quantitative strategies. Passive investing hasn’t eradicated the irrationality of crowds, leaving pockets of opportunity to outperform indices.



© 2024 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.