Amid reforms and with the proposed deadline to ban commissions on investment and super products looming, recruitment firms have reported changes to employers’ hiring strategies.
Growth Focus managing director Steven Fine said there was a small advantage for financial planner candidates that had prior knowledge of operating in a fee-for-service environment.
“Employers are also more focused on planner skill levels at the moment and how planners will go about communicating fee-based remuneration structures with clients,” he said.
“Many are incorporating more role plays into the interview process as well, as they want to see how good advisers are at communicating change to clients.”
Fine said as some advisers had in the past been earning annual commissions based on recurring revenue, base salaries had also been reduced in some instances where commissions had been phased out.
Thomas Hancock and Associates managing director Tom Hancock said many of the big employers felt the transition to fees was acting as a catalyst for practices to sell or move to larger organisations.
“A number of the big players want to acquire businesses and they see the move to fee-for-service as an opportunity to bring on firms that want the extra support of a big group,” he said.
Hancock added that employers did not necessarily favour planners that had operated in a fee-for-service practice, but were more interested in recruiting those that wanted greater support in making the transition, particularly considering the fact that further legislative changes could follow.
Ransdad (formerly Link) banking and financial services manager Corey Aston said employers wanted to increase planner numbers, and with more changes imminent, were also keen to employ experienced planners, leaving less room for graduates.
“Knowledge of fee-for-service remuneration structures is beneficial too but not mandatory,” he said.
