When big isn't necessarily better
By
Kate Kachor
Mon 25 Jan 2010
Much has been said about what 2010 will bring to our industry.
Many are banking on industry reviews to be the impetus for a changing operational and regulatory landscape, though only time will tell as to what the chaps behind Henry and Cooper have in store.
Yet, perhaps what may turn out as the 2010 scene stealer is the increasing amount of merger and acquisition activity within the industry and the respective consequences.
While AMP is keeping the industry busy with a 'will they, won't they?' moment over securing the Australian assets of Axa Asia Pacific, industry scouts are about surveying other opportunities.
Rumours have swirled around a possible takeover by ANZ of IOOF. Despite both parties inability to neither confirm nor deny takeover discussions, as they say, where there's smoke, there's usually fire.
National Australia Bank (NAB) has also been open over its desire to acquire the local assets of Axa Asia Pacific and it is said to be among at least three interested parties to make an offer for dealer group Professional Investment Services (PIS). While NAB may seem as though it has the upper hand, with its purchase of Aviva giving it the option of a stake in PIS, the banking group remains coy on its decision.
Speculation is also mounting that another banking institution is seeking to purchase fellow dealer group Count Financial.
While only rumours, if PIS and Count are sold to large institutional players, this would surely put pressure on the advice industry's push for independent advice for all.
It is only hoped the client-first notion is not lost. Otherwise the past 12 months of fighting for your profession would seem a waste.
You have sought and fought for a transparent industry that lays fees and charges plainly on the table for clients. You have fought for your voice to be heard.
If the 'independents' of this industry are swallowed up by institutions and forced into a salaried environment, who has won? I'm betting it's not the client.
So perhaps in this case, big isn't better. Scale would surely only seek to benefit and line the pockets of the industry fat cats, throwing the best interests of the client out the window.
Though perhaps I'm jumping the gun; perhaps I've missed the mark.
There is of course no certainty that any large institution is looking to turn the cookie cutter on an 'independent' company. Why ruin the brand? Why ruin the offering? Why ruin it for the client?
Let's just hope this industry is shifting towards a future of quality, not a thinly-veiled version of the past.
|
