But the financial planning industry, and particularly the role it plays within the superannuation landscape, is undergoing significant change subsequent to the recent announcements made by Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law Minister Chris Bowen in response to the Ripoll inquiry.
The most significant announcement was formalising the move away commissions to fee-for-service advice models for all financial planners.
This of course should finally put an end to the incredible mileage industry funds have been getting out of their compare the pair publicity campaign for the past three or so years.
However, just when the heat from one debate has been extinguished it would appear financial planners have a whole new challenge from the industry fund sector.
Also included in Bowen’s Ripoll inquiry declaration was the broadening of the intra-fund advice rules.
It means advisers employed by industry funds are no longer confined to just providing advice about a member’s investments within their particular super fund.
Instead, if the legislation is passed, they will soon be able to give advice to super fund members regarding transition-to-retirement strategies, intra-fund pensions, nomination of beneficiaries, Centrelink payments, and advice on general retirement.
With this increase in the number of services industry fund planners are allowed to provide, it may mean a proliferation of their ranks.
As per the cover story in this edition of IFA, already some industry funds are stepping up what they are doing in the space.
Equipsuper, for example, is now considering establishing an advice service on a stand-alone basis outside of its superannuation activities.
These types of developments will take the battle the industry funds have been waging against the advice community right onto the home turf of financial planners.
On the surface, this could be viewed as a pretty significant threat to the mainstream financial planning fraternity.
But interestingly, this move has not been perceived this way by the greater part of the industry.
One of the concerns of implementing a pure fee-for-service remuneration model for all financial planners has always been the danger that people on lower incomes, with smaller asset balances and smaller superannuation entitlements, will be left behind as full-service advisers place even more importance on chasing high net worth clients.
With the expansion of services the industry fund planners will soon be able to offer, it would appear the move is being seen as potentially providing the vital missing piece to the advice puzzle.
That is, these financial planners would perhaps be the perfect group to service lower income earners with the type of financial advice they perhaps desperately need.
If this does turn out to be the case, when the review dust eventually settles every participant might end up with their own patch of turf without treading on anyone else’s toes.
It might actually put an end to the bickering and lead to financial services peace in our time.
