Financial planning (letter)by Robert BomNews Weekly
, March 8, 2003
The combined Australian Consumers Association, ASIC and Choice
magazine report into financial planning could have been classed as constructive, but for its glaring omissions. Financial planning is a relatively new profession and much progress has been made through education and compliances. No doubt, much more needs to be achieved.
In its present form the combined consumer's report did only half a job, which in turn encouraged further vicious comments from a number of quarters. The report did not probe the workings and practices of the union-based industry nor the State/semi-State superannuation funds.
Why did the report ignore the needs and concerns of the clients in these funds? We are talking about some millions of people here. Are the members in the union and State and semi-State Government funds not worthy of consumer protection? Why set the bar at a high level for financial planners only?
Why let the union-based and State/semi-State funds off the hook? Financial planners come across examples of actions in the name of Industry and State funds that would be classed as malpractice if planners committed them.
The ACA-ASIC and Choice
magazine report would have been far more credible if it had some balance. The report used the criteria of Certified Financial Planning as a yardstick. Applying these standards to the report it would be judged as poor to very poor, a definite failure. I have some questions for ACA, ASIC and Choice
Magazine. Why are you offering only selective criticism and what is your agenda?Robert Bom,