Registering to be a QFE will not be hard - nor should it be - as it is mainly a question of putting up your hand and saying "yes, I am happy to take on this potential liability". Whether registering is a wise choice is another matter entirely.
For product providers and dealer groups considering this step it will require a discovery, or a re-discovery, of the advice process. Not merely having an advice process, but having a good one - with a defensible theoretical and practical basis. Not merely having one that could work, and does work when practiced, but one that can you can show was actually used. Then backing that up with the management processes to kick advisers out that do not use the process, or operate beyond the process.
That is a whole new set of tricks for many organisations.
My comments are limited to investors but I fear you are putting to much faith in the ability of the proposed new regime to offer them a better deal. In my view the final legislation was directed away from advice by the large institutions and back towards a product mentality which has bugger all to do with the investor getting good advice and much more to do with the organisation covering its arse. I am sure there will be plenty of legal $ spent determining whether a "good" advice process actually means a "good" outcome for a client. Current bank ombudsman rulings suggest not.
Of course what clients see as valuable advice and what (if anything) they are prepared to pay for it is an interesting question in itself
Posted by: Wayne Ross | July 03, 2009 at 09:27 AM