(Left to right): Cassandra Spies, Emily Pyke, Jessica Armstrong, Leah Kaslar, Djookian & Melisha Sirisena, .

Westpac has announced the five winners of the inaugural Westpac Female Founder Awards, a national awards program recognising female entrepreneurs building businesses across Australia.

The winners are:

• Female Founder of the Year: Emily Pyke, UndaTech
• Thrive Award: Cassandra Spies, Twisted Healthy Treats
• Trailblazer Awards (joint winners): Leah Kaslar, and Jessica Armstrong, Fuca Skincare
• Greater Good Award: Melisha Sirisena, Kids Hearing

The five winners were selected from 15 finalists announced in early August. Open to Westpac customers and non-customers, the awards build on Westpac’s support for women in business, with the bank providing more than $1 billion in lending to over 2,200 women starting or growing a business over the past three years.

“$1 billion in lending isn’t just a number, it’s thousands of businesses now employing people, paying suppliers and growing the local economy,” said Paul Fowler, Westpac Chief Executive, Business & Wealth.

“These five winners represent the ambition, innovation and determination we see every day from women building businesses across Australia. Backing these founders means backing Australian jobs, stronger communities and economic growth across the country.”

Prizes

Female Founder of the Year winner, Emily Pyke, will receive $30,000 cash, a national advertising campaign valued at $120,000 and the choice of coaching, media training or mentoring.

 The category winners will each receive $10,000 cash and their choice of coaching, media training or mentoring. They will also feature in a digital advertising campaign.

“The calibre of this year’s applicants was extraordinary,” said Tamara Bryden, Westpac’s Managing Director of Business Lending.

“This year’s winners show just how broad female-led innovation in Australia really is. Representation on a national stage matters because it recalibrates what the next investor and the next aspiring founder believes is possible.”

Meet the winners

Founder of the Year Award: Emily Pyke, Undatech 

Emily Pyke is the CEO and Co-Founder of UndaTech, developing fire-resistant and protective undergarments for women in high-risk roles across defence, emergency services, mining and construction. After 13 years in the Royal Australian Navy, Emily saw first-hand the safety gap left by women wearing everyday synthetic undergarments under body armour and protective equipment, in environments where fire, explosions and electrical hazards are a daily risk.

“This recognition means so much to our small but mighty team. UndaTech started because my time in Defence gave me exposure to a wide range of high-risk roles, environments and protective equipment, and I saw the same gap show up across all of them. It is incredibly special to have Westpac recognise the importance of designing protective gear around the people who wear it, and this award helps us keep pushing to get better, safer products to the women who need them,” Emily said.

Trailblazer Award: Jessica Armstrong, Fuca Skincare

Jessica founded Fuca Skincare after going through chemotherapy for breast cancer and finding few products suited to compromised skin. Drawing on her background in product development and marketing, Jessica created a brand focused on gentle, low-tox skincare and representation for women with sensitive skin, not just those living with cancer. A percentage of all proceeds is donated to Breast Cancer Network Australia, while Fuca’s campaigns feature women who have experienced cancer, helping build a face-to-face community centred on around shared experience and support.

“This recognition is a full-circle moment I never could have imagined during the darkest days of my cancer diagnosis. Fuca has always been about more than skincare. It is about helping women going through cancer feel seen, supported and part of something bigger, and this award is a beautiful reminder of why that community matters so much,” Jessica said.

Trailblazer Award: Leah Kaslar, Djookian

Leah co-founded Djookian to help mining and infrastructure businesses decarbonise their projects and fleets, while creating meaningful job pathways for women and Indigenous Australians. The 100% female-run business uses hybrid technology and real-time carbon and load tracking to show customers how lower-emissions equipment can also deliver practical performance and cost benefits.

“We started Djookian because we wanted to make real change in industries where we did not always see people like us represented. This award from Westpac helps show that smart, sustainable ideas can create value for customers while opening doors for more women and Indigenous Australians to build careers in the energy transition,” Leah said.

Thrive Award: Cassandra Spies, Twisted Healthy Treats

Cassandra founded Twisted Healthy Treats after struggling to find delicious desserts she felt good about sharing with her family. The Australian-owned business makes better-for-you frozen treats using 100% Australian dairy, with the products stocked in 85% of school canteens and across national supermarket retailers, including Woolworths, Coles, ALDI and Costco. The business has grown to employ more than 80 people and has recently expanded into international markets, including the USA, Taiwan and China.

“As Australia’s only female-founded frozen dessert brand with our own manufacturing operation, we are incredibly proud of what we have built – from our factory in Ingleburn to products now reaching families across Australia and overseas. Building a business in food manufacturing takes a lot of persistence, so to receive this recognition from Westpac, and to have a banking partner that understands our growth journey, is incredibly meaningful,” Cassandra said.

Greater Good Award: Melisha Sirisena, Kids Hearing

Melisha is a paediatric audiologist and founder of Kids Hearing, a service working to make hearing checks more accessible for children. After years working at Westmead Children’s Hospital and in schools in Singapore, Melisha saw how routine hearing checks could identify issues before they affected a child’s learning, speech or confidence. She started Kids Hearing after a school screening pilot identified children with permanent hearing loss that had gone undetected for years.

“Behind every hearing check is a child and a family who we’ve been able to help get on the right track. To have Westpac recognise Kids Hearing is incredibly encouraging. It shows that what we’re doing matters and helps start important conversations about children’s hearing health and the need for hearing checks to be a routine part of their healthcare, just like dental and vision checks,” Melisha said.

The post Westpac announces winners of inaugural Female Founder Awards appeared first on AdviserVoice.

To the extent that advice can overcome barriers to advice could be a game changer.

There are many barriers which can prevent a prospect from engaging in the professional financial advice process, and those prospect barriers are our problem to address. We have to try and eliminate or negate all of them.

The first step in understanding how to negate them is of course being able to identify them.

Regardless of the specialist area of financial advice the following barriers exist for the majority of consumers:

1. Awareness of need or potentially beneficial products
2. Limited experience of professional advice processes or value
3. Inadequate financial literacy or knowledge
4. Cynicism, or doubt in industry generally
5. No sense of immediacy to resolve long term or perceived low risk personal planning issues
6. Poor reputation and low trust in the financial advice component
7. Fear of being misled or sold inappropriate solutions
8. Inconvenient, expensive, boring and time consuming purchase process
9. Establishing required level of trust with an individual adviser
10. Information overload (too much complex information and jargon in early stages of engagement)
11. Perception of being overly intrusive (too much medical, financial & lifestyle disclosure on the consumers part)
12. Disproportionate sense of commitment (consumer has to sign “contracts” or enter into arrangements spanning decades)

The power of word-of-mouth, or referral, marketing is that it virtually eliminates barriers 2, 5, 6, 7 and 9. The transfer of trust which arises from those peer to peer recommendations does actually negate a number of the barriers to prospects engaging with us.But not all….and our marketing and communication must resolve these barriers in order for a consumer to engage us.

If we are trying to engage with a larger pool of prospective clients, and not just those arriving via personal introduction,  then our marketing and communication has to handle ALL of these issues at some point. While I have arranged the barriers in a generally logical (or perhaps chronological) order we should not take it for granted that consumers will wish to have each addressed in the same sequence.  So we cannot take it for granted that some of these barriers will be resolved when we actually get to meet prospects and go through our disclosure discussions….many will want those issues addressed before deciding to engage.

An effective marketing plan should ensure that it confronts all 12 barriers head on. Call out the ghosts….address the elephant in the room….pick your own metaphor for it, but deal with them up front. We cannot ignore them as they are real issues for the consumers who we would love to have as clients, and those consumers will not become clients until these barriers are addressed or negated.

All of them, that is.

The post 12 engagement barriers that we must address appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Daniel Shrimski

With financial literacy rates in Australia remaining low, Vanguard Australia has welcomed the launch of the Parliamentary Friends of Financial Capability (PFG), a new non-partisan parliamentary group established to elevate financial capability as a national priority.

Congratulating the Co-Chairs, Senator Richard Dowling and Senator Jessica Collins, Vanguard said the group provides an important opportunity to bring together policymakers, regulators, educators, industry and community leaders to strengthen Australians’ financial confidence and capability.

Daniel Shrimski, Managing Director Asia Pacific at Vanguard said improving financial capability should be recognised as a national priority.

“Financial capability is a key issue. It underpins retirement security, cost-of-living resilience, housing outcomes, women’s economic participation, scam resilience and broader economic productivity,” Mr Shrimski said.

“Every day Australians are required to make increasingly complex financial decisions, yet too many lack the knowledge, confidence and support needed to navigate them successfully.”

According to Vanguard’s upcoming 2026 How Australia Retires report, nearly half of working-age Australians lacking a retirement plan and only 38 per cent correctly identifying when they can access their superannuation.

Senator Richard Dowling added, “A dignified retirement doesn’t begin at 65. It is built decision by decision over a working life, which is why financial capability matters at every age.”

Vanguard said the need to improve financial capability is becoming even more important as Australians increasingly rely on new technologies to access financial information.

“Technology can expand access to financial information, but it does not remove the need for financial capability, in fact it makes it even more urgent,” Mr Shrimski said.

“Australians need the skills and confidence to assess information critically, understand its limitations and make informed decisions based on their own circumstances.”

Senator Dowling added “Australians are surrounded by financial information. The challenge is knowing whether the source is informing you, selling to you or exploiting you.”

Senator Dowling said “AI can give you an answer in seconds. It can’t give you judgement. Financial capability is knowing the difference.”

Vanguard said meaningful progress would require a renewed national approach focused on three key areas: a national financial capability strategy, stronger financial education in schools and targeted public education initiatives that support Australians at key life stages.

“We need a national financial capability strategy with enduring, bipartisan support and clear accountability for outcomes,” Mr Shrimski said.

“We should also look seriously at how financial education is delivered in schools so young Australians build these skills early and consistently.”

“Importantly, Australians need access to trusted resources, research and public awareness campaigns throughout their lives, particularly at moments when financial decisions can have the greatest long-term impact, from starting work and buying a home through to preparing for and living in retirement.”

Mr Shrimski said improving financial capability would help more Australians participate confidently in the financial system and build greater long-term financial security.

“The launch of the Parliamentary Friends of Financial Capability is an important step towards ensuring more Australians have the knowledge, confidence and support they need, and we commend the Co-Chairs for getting this critical issue back on the table in Canberra.”

Senator Dowling commented “Financially capable Australians can participate in our prosperity, not just observe it. When people can save, invest and plan with confidence, households are stronger and so is the economy.”

The post Vanguard welcomes national focus on financial capability appeared first on AdviserVoice.

A client’s choice of aged care adviser can be the difference between a smooth transition and a costly, stressful one. That stake is exactly what the Aged Care Adviser of the Year Award was built to recognise, and it is why Aged Care Steps (ACS) says the Award, now in its fifth year, matters more than ever.

Nominations for the 2026 Award are open, with two categories again open to individual advisers and advice businesses: the Aged Care Adviser of the Year, and the Aged Care Advice Initiative of the Year.

What winning means for recognised advisers

For Zachary Dodds CFP^®, the 2025 Aged Care Adviser of the Year, the recognition landed off the back of eight years spent building a specialist practice at Muirfield Financial Services.

“What sets good aged care advice apart isn’t just knowing the rules; it’s the network you build around a client: aged care providers, hospitals, other professionals who can be trusted to look after that family properly,” says Zac. “Being recognised twice by ACS in consecutive years tells me that approach is resonating, not just with clients but with the industry. It’s given me more conviction to keep raising the profile of aged care advice, not less.”

Kerri Mendl, Managing Adviser at Alteris Financial Group, the 2025 winners of the Aged Care Advice Initiative of the Year, says the recognition validated a philosophy Alteris has held since 2014.

“We’ve always believed that giving advice is only part of the job,” Kerri says. “What the award told us is that clients notice the difference when you meet them where they are in their journey, not just when they need advice. That’s what we built our client nurture program around, and it’s why winning in 2025, on top of our recognition in 2023 and 2022 is really significant for the Alteris team.”

Why ACS continues to support advisers with the Award

According to Assyat David, Director of Aged Care Steps, the Award exists to give proper weight to work that too often goes unrecognised.

“Aged care advice sits at one of the most stressful points in a family’s life, and doing it well takes a level of technical rigour and patience that doesn’t always get seen outside the advice room,” Assyat says. “We started this Award to change that. Every year the nominations remind us how much genuine expertise is out there, often from advisers who wouldn’t think to put themselves forward. If that’s you, we want to hear from you in 2026.”

How to enter

Advisers and advice businesses can nominate themselves or be nominated by a colleague. Entries are assessed by an independent panel of industry professionals.

Nominations close Friday 4 September at 6:00 pm Sydney time. Full details, category criteria and the nomination form are available at agedcaresteps.com.au.

The post Aged Care Steps launches 2026 Aged Care Adviser of the Year Awards appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Build trust with your clients will contribute to running an ethical advice practice.

Trust sits at the heart of every successful financial advice relationship. In this article, proudly sponsored by GSFM, the importance of the trust relationship and its link to ethical practice is explored.

At the heart of the adviser-client dynamic lies trust, which the Oxford Dictionary defines as the conviction that someone is sincere, honest and reliable. This foundational element mirrors the very values of honesty and fairness that anchor the Financial Planners and Advisers Code of Ethics (the Code). Ultimately, the Code’s standards – such as mandating integrity and prioritising the client’s best interests – serve to put this definition into practice.

While it cannot be measured on a balance sheet or captured in a performance report, trust is one of the most valuable assets an adviser can build. It is earned through consistency, integrity and a genuine commitment to putting clients’ interests first.

For financial advisers, ethical conduct is more than a regulatory obligation, it’s the foundation upon which trust is built. The best interests duty and the Code provide an important framework, but their true value lies in how they shape everyday decisions, conversations and client relationships.

In an industry where clients often seek guidance through some of life’s most significant milestones, trust is the intangible asset that sets exceptional advice apart. It is what gives clients confidence that their adviser understands their goals, respects their circumstances and is committed to helping them achieve better outcomes.

There are times when trust has been a challenge for the financial advice profession. ASIC’s 2019 report^[1] explored consumer attitudes towards financial advice, including barriers to seeking advice. It found that while Australians recognise the expertise advisers can provide, concerns about cost, accessibility and lack of trust remain barriers for some consumers.

However, research increasingly shows that when advisers act in their clients’ best interests and deliver meaningful value, trust becomes one of the profession’s greatest differentiators. The Financial Advice Association Australia’s Value of Advice Index^[2] highlights the critical role trust plays in the adviser-client relationship. It found trust in financial advisers was reported at an all-time high, with 94% of advised clients saying they trust their adviser to act in their best interests.

When trust is misplaced

Despite high levels of trust in advisers, there are times when it is misplaced. In recent times, headlines have been dominated by the collapses of the First Guardian and Shield master funds. These provide an unfortunately clear illustration in recent history of a trusted relationship functioning perfectly on the surface while failing completely underneath.

Around eleven thousand Australians invested roughly $1.1 billion in these two funds^[3].  Many of these investors hadn’t sought out these investments themselves; instead, people were contacted by lead generators and referred to financial advisers, who then told them to roll their superannuation into a chosen fund or set up a self-managed super fund to invest in First Guardian. To the investor, this looked like ordinary advice. A professional had assessed their situation and made a recommendation. The relationship carried every outward marker of trust: a licensed adviser, a regulated superannuation system, paperwork that looked in order.

What made this possible wasn’t a single bad actor slipping through the cracks. It was a chain of gatekeepers, advisers, platforms and trustees, each one relying on the layer above or below it to have done the checking. Some platforms did their due diligence properly and refused to list these funds at all. Others didn’t, and, with the 20/20 vision of hindsight, the concentration of money flowing through a small number of advisers should have raised questions long before it did.

This is what makes the case useful for thinking about trust rather than just compliance. Nobody investing their super believed they were taking a risk on an unvetted product. They believed they were following professional advice, which is exactly the point. The mechanism of trust, an adviser telling a client what to do with money the client couldn’t independently evaluate, worked exactly as designed. What was missing was the substance that’s supposed to sit behind it: genuine, disinterested assessment of whether this was actually in the client’s best interest.

Standard 12 of the Code is worth naming directly here; it is the one standard that isn’t really about a single adviser’s conduct toward a single client. It’s about the profession policing itself, and it’s exactly this collective accountability that was missing in the Shield and First Guardian collapse. This standard asks advisers to hold their peers to account, not just themselves and the Shield and First Guardian collapse is an example of a headline grabbing trust breakdown that can have industry-wide ramifications.

Genuine trust between advisers and clients, backed by advisers holding each other to account, is what stands between isolated failures and events that damage the whole profession’s reputation.

When trust is broken

Trust is a complex topic because it is intangible and personal. The factors that build and break trust can vary from person to person. However, one certain way to breach the trust of your client is to provide them with inappropriate advice and/or fail to act in their best interests. As well as being a trust breaker, such behaviour is also a clear breach of ethical standards.

The number of consumers who believe they’ve been given inappropriate advice or advice that is not in their best interest has increased according to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA). In financial year 2025, AFCA received 4,193 complaints about investment and advice, an 18 percent increase on financial year 2024, when complaints had fallen to 3,559.

Further, AFCA’s calendar year 2025 data (a separate release from the FY25 annual review) shows investment and advice complaints jumped further to 5,816, up 58 percent, largely driven by First Guardian and Shield complaints.

AFCA’s chief ombudsman and chief executive, David Locke, linked the rise directly to systemic problems in how advice is delivered, saying the complaints data points to “systemic issues in advice models, particularly where conflicts of interest and inappropriate use of SMSFs are involved.”^[4]

Claims of failing to act in the client’s best interest now dominate AFCA’s complaints in the investment and advice sector, overtaking inappropriate advice, which was the leading issue the previous year. While each case will have potentially breached a range of standards in the Code of Ethic, these cases – assuming they were upheld – will have most likely breached standards two and/or five.

Once broken, trust is notoriously difficult to rebuild, particularly in financial advice where clients depend on advisers to act with absolute honesty and integrity. This trust can be eroded in many ways. Some are intentional, such as hidden fees or misleading advice, while others are external, like market downturns or economic shifts.

Yet, even when market forces are beyond an adviser’s control, clients may still feel betrayed if they encounter poor communication, negligence or a lack of transparency. Mending these relationships requires a sustained commitment to transparency, clear communication and prioritising the client’s financial well-being.

Building trust in an advice practice

Simply put, ethical behaviour is the foundation of trust. By adhering to the twelve standards of the Code, you naturally foster deep, lasting trust with your clients.

Trust-building isn’t just a fair-weather strategy; it is forged in times of volatility. With ongoing geopolitical instability, sticky inflation, shifting interest rates and changes to CGT tax rules, your clients’ fortitude will likely be tested this year.

To safeguard your client relationships, consider these core pillars of trust:

• Ditch the jargon – meet client questions with honest, straightforward answers. Proactive communication about market risks can transform anxiety into confidence.
• Prioritise responsiveness – timely, efficient communication signals respect. Evasiveness or delays only breed doubt.
• Act as a true fiduciary – put each client’s financial wellbeing ahead of the practice’s bottom line. Deliver rigorous research and educate clients so they feel empowered rather than dependent.

Ultimately, trust is earned through consistent, integrity-driven actions. Cultivating transparency today secures the long-term client loyalty of tomorrow.

While a little dated (last updated in 2022), the CFA Institute Investor Trust Study examined investor trust dynamics that revealed three “trust enhancers” for financial advisers:

1. Technology – investors have more trust in firms that use technology effectively.
   What technology can you use in your practice to add value to clients?
2. Aligned interests – not only should you disclose and mitigate conflicts of interest (per Standard 3 of the Code of Ethics) you should also understand the client’s interests, goals and values and ensure their financial plan is appropriately aligned to them.
3. Connections – at an organisational level, the research found that investors are increasingly using brands as proxies for trust. At the adviser level, personal interactions are required to build a strong foundation.

In financial planning, client trust has been found to be the most important factor for relationship quality^[5]. Trust comes from building relationships and having deep engagement with your clients.

The degree to which clients trust their financial adviser is positively influenced by the belief that the adviser is acting in their best interests (customer oriented) and is negatively influenced by the belief that the adviser is acting out of self-interest (sales-oriented)^[6]. As well as being a trust breaker, acting out of self-interest will breach several standards in the Code, again highlighting the important connection between trust and ethical behaviour.

Figure two illustrates a model of trust developed following research undertaken for a PhD Dissertation in 2015^[7]. As well as illustrating the characteristics of trust as it pertains to financial planning, it can also be used to link the importance of ethical behaviours to the elements that constitute a trust relationship. Starting at the top and moving clockwise, we will explore this interrelationship between trust factors and ethical standards more closely.

Vulnerability/Risk – each of your clients will have periods of feeling vulnerable as they move through life. These may be personal vulnerabilities or from the influence of external factors.

The stronger the trust relationship between you, the knowledge that you have acted in their best interests means the client is less likely to be fearful during periods of market volatility or challenging personal circumstances. By providing you with informed consent, your client acknowledges the trust they are placing in you.

Faith – clients want to have faith in their adviser, want to have a trust relationship, want to know you are doing the best by them. By acting in their best interests and building a strong interpersonal connection, your client is best positioned to have faith in your role and their ability to meet their financial objectives.

Competence – while competence is implicit in most of the Code’s standards, it is explicit in standards nine and ten – all advice, not just financial product advice, must be offered with competence. From a trust perspective, this competence will be demonstrated not simply through a Statement of Advice and financial products you recommend, but also through the communications and other interactions you have with your clients.

Best interests – you don’t need research to know that failure to act in a client’s best interest is a trust killer. It is also a sign of unethical behaviour and, while it impacts a number of standards in the Code of Ethics, it is an explicit breach of standards two and five.

Honesty – honesty and ethical practice go hand in hand. Dishonesty of any type will crush the trust built between two people and, in the context of financial advice, destroy the adviser-client relationship. Depending on the nature of the dishonesty, it will likely see you breach several of the Code’s standards, in particular standard two, which requires you to act with integrity.

Accountability – it is important to demonstrate that you, and other members of your practice, are accountable for all actions in relation to your clients. Particularly in situations where things haven’t gone to plan, accountability is essential to maintaining the trust you have developed with your client.

Feeling – while trust is built over time, it is often driven by a feeling of wellbeing (or lack thereof). By acting your clients’ best interests and adhering to the standards that comprise the Code of Ethics, you’re more likely to engender and maintain a trust relationship with your clients.

Case studies

The following case studies are based on real events; however, the names of people and organisations have been changed, and some details altered. The case studies have been drawn from ASIC and AFCA. For each, potential breaches of the Code of Ethics are identified.

Case study one: Dishonest conduct

There is nothing like dishonest conduct to erode trust; if that conduct is widespread or becomes more widely known, it can also create a sense of distrust for the industry as a whole.

ACME Advice has held an AFS licence since 2017; however, the business was sold in 2024. The licence was cancelled after ASIC found ACME Advice had contravened its obligations as an AFS licensee. This was based on findings including misleading or deceptive conduct, dishonest conduct in connection with its financial services business, as well as failures in compliance, supervision and resourcing.

ASIC found that ACME Advice:

• Created a fake bond prospectus for a bond related to a major bank and used it to solicit investor funds
• Encouraged and facilitated client investment into the non-existent bond product, including arranging payment and documentation for transactions
• Obtained at least $100,000 from investors for a bond that did not exist
• Made misleading or deceptive statements on its website, including misrepresenting its experience and altering scam warnings about it that were issued by third parties
• Provided false documents to an auditor, amounting to dishonest conduct.

In its review of the case, ASIC noted it considered that ACME Advice had engaged in conduct that was misleading or deceptive, dishonest and inconsistent with the fundamental obligations of AFS licensees to act efficiently, honestly and fairly.

Based on these details, a case could be made that licensee ACME Advice breached the following standards in the Code.

Case study two: Unlicensed advice

Running a financial advice business without a proper licence and operating unregistered managed investment schemes are direct violations of the law. Doing so by exploiting inexperienced investors and steering their money into these schemes is a profound breach of trust.

Pari and Rohan sought advice from adviser Malcolm, who was also a director of his advice business, ACME Investments. The couple was approaching retirement and wanted advice as to how to best structure their superannuation and other assets for retirement.

The couple had become aware of Malcolm and ACME Investments via promotions the financial firm ran on social media. These promotions offered fixed returns of 25-35 percent to be paid between 12 to 36 months.

Malcolm did not disclose that the schemes he recommended were operated by ACME Investments. He recommended Pari and Rohan establish an SMSF and each roll their superannuation assets into the fund. The couple did this and then invested the proceeds in the recommended investments.

By the end of the first year, the couple realised the promised returns had failed to materialise. Although they were persuaded to extend their investment for another year, an ASIC investigation soon intervened, freezing both Malcolm’s and the firm’s assets. Later that year, ASIC launched civil action against Malcolm and ACME Investments for alleged unlicensed conduct and the operation of multiple unregistered managed investment schemes. Consequently, receivers were appointed over the schemes’ properties and their associated trusts.

The Federal Court found company director Malcolm guilty of operating unregistered managed investment schemes and carrying on a financial services business without holding an AFSL. Handing down its judgment, the Federal Court ordered Malcolm to pay $1.45 million and that he be disqualified for four years. He was also ordered to pay $52,000 of ASIC’s costs.

Additionally, the court ordered that ACME Investments, of which Malcolm was the sole shareholder and director, be wound up alongside five of the investment schemes and associated companies.

The court heard that numerous investors were referred to third parties to establish SMSFs in order to invest in the schemes. The court found that many of the 217 investors in the schemes were inexperienced investors and believed that the funds they had invested were secure and that returns would be significant. Investor losses totalled approximately $32 million.

The court’s judgment was understood to be the first time a court has ordered a pecuniary penalty against an individual for a contravention of section 601ED of the Corporations Act. This section mandates that a managed investment scheme (MIS) must be registered with ASIC if it has more than 20 members, is promoted by a business in the MIS promotion industry or is determined by ASIC to be closely related to schemes with more than 20 investors in total.  It is also the third highest civil penalty ordered against an individual in relation to a proceeding commenced by ASIC.

Malcolm’s actions potentially breached the following standards of the Code.

Case study three: Investment in the adviser’s best interest

Helen and her husband Peter had been clients of ACME Financial Planning for nine years. They trusted their adviser, Kurt and when he invited them to purchase membership in a timeshare managed investment scheme operated by his licensee, they expressed interest.

Helen and Peter attended an information session for the investment, during which Kurt provided them with information and advice about the investment. Kurt received a financial incentive for each sale, which he did not disclose to his clients.

During this information session, Helen asked Kurt if it was possible to cancel membership in the scheme at any time. She was told they could cancel the investment for an exit fee of $550; Helen and Peter relied on that statement when deciding to take up the investment. As it turned out, this statement was misleading and Kurt later denied specifying an exit fee or exit clause.

To exit the investment, Helen and Peter were required to:

• pay out the investment loan they had taken out to purchase the timeshare
• find a buyer for their portion of the timeshare
• pay an additional exit fee – one much higher than they believed they were told. This was outlined in fine print on page 42 of the scheme’s offer document.

An investigation found a range of other issues with the advice the couple received, including:

• Kurt’s file notes were incomplete and did not record all the matters referred to by Helen and Peter in their complaint.
• The statement of advice (SOA) provided to Helen and Peter was generic and not tailored specifically to them; it did not identify their objectives, nor did it provide advice reasonably likely to satisfy those objectives.
• The SOA also failed to discuss the specified risks associated with accepting the advice to invest in a non-liquid managed investment scheme on a long-term basis.

From the details provided in the case study, Kurt potentially breached the following standards.

Trust and ethical conduct aren’t separate goals for financial advisers, they’re the same goal seen from two angles. When advisers put their clients’ best interests first, maintain transparency and provide accurate, impartial advice, they’re not just meeting the requirements of the Code of Ethics, they’re building the kind of trust that long-term relationships depend on.

In a financial environment as complex as this one, trust becomes the foundation for sound decision-making, supporting both individual client outcomes and the stability of the broader system. It also has a practical benefit that’s easy to overlook. Advisers who genuinely earn their clients’ trust, rather than simply satisfying the letter of the Code, are far less likely to face the complaints, investigations and reputational damage that come when a relationship breaks down. Ethics, in this sense, isn’t a constraint on good advice. It’s what makes good advice possible in the first place.

Take the FAAA accredited quiz to earn 0.75 CPD hour:

CPD Quiz

The following CPD quiz is accredited by the FAAA at 0.75 hour.

Legislated CPD Area: Professionalism and Ethics (0.75 hrs)

ASIC Knowledge Requirements: Ethics (0.75 hrs)

please log in to start this quiz

———–

Notes:
[1] ASIC Report 627 – Financial advice: What consumers really think, August 2019
[2] FAAA, Value of Advice Index, October 2024
[3] ASIC media release 26-019MR, ASIC takes further steps to support Australians impacted by First Guardian and Shield collapse, 5 February 2026
[4] Financial Newswire, Fund collapses fuel spike in AFCA advice complaints, 24 October 2025
[5] Hunt, K., Brimble, M. and Freudenberg, B. (2011), ‘Determinants of Client-Professional Relationship Quality in the Financial Planning Setting’, Australasian Accounting Business and Finance Journal
[6] Bejou, D., Ennew, C. and Palmer, A. (1998), ‘Trust, ethics and relationship satisfaction’, International Journal of Bank Marketing
[6] Cull, M. (2015), The role of trust in personal financial planning, PhD Dissertation, University of Western Sydney

The post CPD: Trust – the unseen foundation of ethical financial advice appeared first on AdviserVoice.

ASIC’s review of the FAR demonstrates that meeting the qualification standard is only half the compliance task.

Imagine you were qualified but nobody told ASIC

Imagine you had met the exacting educational standards to practice as a financial adviser, but someone didn’t tell ASIC, or at least, didn’t tell them correctly, and as a result you weren’t authorised to give advice.

Incredibly, that happened to over 100 advisers in the middle of 2026, following the 1 January Financial Adviser Register (FAR) deadline for adviser qualifications, and a subsequent ASIC review into AFSL adherence.

To help readers avoid falling into the same trap, this article explores the legislative framework underpinning adviser and licensee obligations around adviser educational standards, the record-keeping failures identified by ASIC through their review, and the practical steps firms can take to ensure they would withstand similar regulatory scrutiny.

Education – the foundations of a profession

Foundational to the credibility of financial advice profession – in the eyes of the community, regulators, and policy makers – is the framework of professional standards within which advisers must operate. As with other professions, this framework includes both educational and conduct standards.

Financial advice made its first serious strides towards such a framework in 2017, when the Federal Government passed the Corporations Amendment (Professional Standards of Financial Advisers) Act^[1]. This Act introduced the standards we now take for granted, including the need to complete the national adviser exam and Professional Year, the Code of Ethics, continuing professional development (CPD) and of course the minimum education/qualification standards.

While the educational standards became effective 1 January 2019^[2], the quantum of the change, and advocacy on behalf of the profession, saw a number of transitionary arrangements put in place.

The 1 January 2026 qualifications deadline

After several years of these transitionary arrangements, 1 January 2026 finally saw a single, universal deadline by which every existing adviser had to meet the qualifications standard, (either through formal education or the permitted Experienced Provider pathway).

In the lead up to this deadline, ASIC was very active in reminding advisers about the need to not only meet these requirements, but to properly record their compliance with these requirements via the FAR^[3]. ASIC concerns were well founded – as late as 1 December 2025, their own figures showed 2,326 of the 15,469 relevant providers on the FAR had yet to meet the qualifications standard^[4], a gap IFA reported was leaving thousands of advisers “at risk” of missing the cutoff^[5].

ASIC’s review after the 1 January deadline

While ultimately that prediction didn’t come to pass, independent analysis published in Money Management in February 2026 suggested there were still around 200 advisers registered but not qualified^[6].

This was much closer to the figure uncovered by ASIC themselves when they conducted their own review in the first half of 2026.

Specifically, ASIC found 132 advisers had no record of any qualification or training course meeting the required standard, with some relying on nothing more than passing the adviser exam^[7].

As the responsibility for adviser records on the FAR sits with the licensee, ASIC intervened directly with the 82 AFS licensees responsible for these advisers (rather than the advisers themselves). Following this intervention, 106 of these records were corrected, while the remaining 26 advisers had their authorisation to provide personal advice withdrawn.

In its own guidance following the review, ASIC advised^[8] that licensees should check that “the financial adviser exam has not been incorrectly marked as going toward meeting the qualifications standard” – the specific error at the centre of the 132 flagged cases.

What is remarkable about this finding is that over 100 advisers were in breach of their compliance obligations – and operating without authorisation – not because they weren’t qualified, but because they (or more precisely their licensee) hadn’t recorded those qualifications properly.

ASIC’s review is thus a timely reminder that meeting the qualifications standard is only part of the compliance task. Advisers and licensees must also be able to demonstrate that compliance through accurate and up-to-date records.

What the law says about adviser qualifications

The adviser qualifications standards are legislated and defined in the s921B (2) of the Corporations Act, and in the Corporations (Relevant Providers Degrees, Qualifications and Courses Standard) Determination of 2021^[9].

New advisers

For new advisers (anyone entering the profession after the standard took effect on 1 January 2019), the educational requirements are straightforward. The legislation requires ‘relevant providers’, (advisers authorised to give personal advice to retail clients on relevant financial products), to hold an approved degree or an equivalent qualification.

Approved degrees and qualifications are clearly defined in Schedule 1 of the 2021 Determination, and in the vast majority of cases are traditional business degrees, including commerce, accounting, finance, and financial planning. Schedule 1 goes to a further level of granularity, listing approved courses by institution, enrolment date, and even specific units required within that course.

Existing advisers

For advisers already practising before the standard took effect, the requirements are/were more complex. Existing advisers were able to meet the same standard required of new entrants (a matching Schedule 1 degree) or use one of two transitional pathways. In total that meant three routes to complying:

1. A formal degree
   Completing a bachelor’s degree or higher that matches exactly a qualification listed in Schedule 1 of the Determination (see above).
2. An equivalent qualification under Part 3 of the Determination
   A separate route for existing providers, allowing them to meet the standard by giving them credit for existing qualifications, including those offered by professional associations (such as the FAAA). In many cases the standard was able to be met by supplementing these ‘equivalent qualifications’ with one or more recognised bridging units (including Ethics, Behavioural Finance, and Regulatory & Legal obligations). 1 January 2026 was a hard deadline for this route.
3. The Experienced Provider pathway
   One of the more substantive decisions regarding adviser education standards related to the treatment of the many advisers already in the profession, who had been successfully serving their clients for years. After much lobbying^[10], an ‘Experienced Provider’ definition was introduced in 2023, and advisers meeting this definition (see below) can access this pathway by making a written declaration to their AFS licensee confirming they satisfy this requirement. There is no fixed deadline for making this declaration, however advisers who wished to continue providing personal advice without interruption from 1 January 2026 needed to have made the declaration before that date if they were relying on this pathway. Advisers who failed to do so lost their relevant provider status from 1 January 2026. ASIC’s INFO 281^[11] makes clear, however, that they may subsequently regain that status if they make the declaration before being re-authorised and otherwise satisfy the legislative requirements.

Definition of Experienced Provider

To satisfy the definition, an adviser must have had at least ten years’ cumulative experience giving personal advice to retail clients between 2007 and 2021, a clean disciplinary record as of 31 December 2021, and a pass in the financial adviser exam by their cut-off date of either January or October 2022^[12].

The recording of qualifications on the FAR continues to be problematic

Interestingly, the problems identified by ASIC in the 2026 FAR review were also discovered in 2024^[13], when their spot-check found the same category of error occurring frequently enough to be concerning.

Common errors uncovered in 2024 included:

• some of the qualifications marked as ‘approved’ did not accurately match the wording of the course in the 2021 Determination
• some of the qualifications marked as ‘approved’ were not approved qualifications, they were professional designations (e.g. ‘Certified Financial Planner’)
• some of the qualifications marked as ‘approved’ were not, in isolation, approved qualifications, they were bridging courses. These may be listed in the Determination but are required to be coupled with another qualification to meet the requirements of the professional standard, and
• some of the qualifications marked as ‘approved’ were not approved qualifications under the Determination (examples included: the Financial Adviser Exam, Australian Qualifications Framework 1-5 qualifications, and Regulatory Guide 146 training/qualifications).

Following that process, ASIC called on AFS licensees to assess the accuracy of what they had recorded on the FAR in relation to their advisers.

The FAAA had raised near-identical concerns with its own members a month before the deadline^[14], flagging two of the most common issues it was seeing – advisers who hadn’t flagged which pathway they intended to use, and Experienced Provider pathway advisers who either began advising too late to qualify or hadn’t passed the exam before their cut-off.

Is qualification granularity part of the problem?

Advisers typically value concrete – as opposed to vague – guidance from the regulator, however when it comes to complying with the qualifications standard, this specificity may actually be contributing to non-compliance through inaccurate recording.

As explained earlier, Schedule 1 of the Determination lists specific degree titles, from specific universities, often tied to a specific enrolment date range and a specific list of named units. The same degree name can appear multiple times as different versions of itself, because the unit structure changed over the years, and each version carries its own conditions. Some versions may require an ethics bridging unit, while others will explicitly exempt from that requirement.

What is challenging is that none of this is visible just from looking at a degree certificate or someone’s CV. A licensee who recognises a familiar degree name can easily miss that the adviser enrolled outside the approved window or completed a different combination of units to the one that particular version requires. This can lead to the situation where the adviser appears qualified on paper, while on the FAR the qualification recorded doesn’t actually satisfy the law.

What does the right evidence actually look like?

Acting in good faith is not, in itself, sufficient. Licensees, as those responsible for completing FAR records, need to ensure they have the right documentary evidence to (1) support any entry they make on the FAR, and (2) rely on in the event that ASIC knocks on the door.

The most obvious starting point is of course the adviser’s final academic transcript, not a degree certificate, and not a CV listing the qualification by name. A transcript shows the actual units completed, the dates they were completed, and the specific course code, which is what needs to be checked against the relevant item in Schedule 1 of the Determination. Where an adviser’s academic transcripts or other records do not demonstrate that a listed degree satisfies all of the conditions specified in the Determination, the licensee should obtain either written confirmation from the education provider that those conditions have been met, or written approval from the Minister that the qualification is equivalent to the approved qualification.

A pass in the financial adviser exam is not, on its own, sufficient evidence of anything beyond the exam itself. As ASIC’s own review made clear, this was one of the most common errors: an exam pass recorded as though it satisfied the qualifications standard in isolation. The exam is a separate requirement, and while it’s necessary for most pathways, it should be treated as an addition to – not instead of – an equivalent qualification, or an Experienced Provider declaration.

For advisers relying on the Experienced Provider pathway, the relevant evidence is the written declaration itself, correctly dated and held by the licensee, confirming the adviser meets the definition – ten years’ experience within the specified window, a clean disciplinary record as at the specified date, and an exam pass by the applicable cut-off.

At a high level, the evidence threshold is therefore quite simple – there needs to be a specific document, matched against a specific requirement.

Practical steps for licensees

Good governance requires robust processes, even around requirements that seem basic. There are a number of steps AFSLs should consider in order to strengthen their compliance with adviser qualification standards.

• Make verification continuous not one-off
  Qualification verification should not be a one-off compliance exercise, only to be completed when an adviser first joins a licensee. Advisers can expand their authorisations and change licensees. Periodically review qualification records to minimise the risk of FAR records gradually becoming out of date.
• Assign clear accountability
  Licensees, not advisers, are responsible for maintaining accurate FAR records. Firms that clearly assign responsibility for verifying adviser qualifications and require that supporting documentation is complete before authorisation is granted or renewed, are less likely to experience the issues identified by ASIC.
• Licensee transfers are an obvious verification point
  Every transfer between licensees should trigger the verification of qualifications from scratch. Under ASIC’s guidance on the Experienced Provider pathway, a new licensee should independently confirm an adviser’s eligibility rather than relying solely on checks performed by a previous licensee.
• Rely on primary documentation
  As previously discussed, the granularity with which approved courses are listed in the legislation means verification should rely on primary source documents rather than secondary evidence. Use full academic transcripts rather than CVs or certificates or even LinkedIn profiles. Formal documentation is preferable to self-reporting. Matching degree titles, enrolment periods, completed units and any applicable bridging requirements against Schedule 1 of the Determination helps minimise the types of recording errors identified during ASIC’s reviews.
• The Experienced Provider pathway is still open
  As explained earlier, missing the declaration required under the Experienced Provider pathway does not necessarily prevent an adviser from relying on that pathway in the future. As detailed in INFO 281, advisers who lost relevant provider status because they failed to make the declaration before 1 January 2026 may still be able to regain that status by making the declaration before being re-authorised, provided they continue to satisfy the legislative requirements.

Additionally, the ASIC website provides comprehensive guidance on assessing qualifications^[15] and updating the register^[16].

In summary

ASIC’s review of the FAR demonstrates that meeting the qualification standard is only half the compliance task. Licensees must also be able to prove, through accurate FAR records and appropriate documentary evidence, that each adviser meets the standard they are relying on. For many firms, that means shifting qualification verification from an administrative task completed once, to an ongoing compliance process capable of withstanding regulatory scrutiny.

There is some urgency with this task, with ASIC already signalling their scrutiny isn’t finished.

As Money Management reported^[17], ASIC may yet conduct a further review of the specific qualifications and training courses licensees have marked against the standard, rather than simply confirming that a qualification of some kind has been recorded. Meaning time, as always, is of the essence.

Take the FAAA accredited quiz to earn 0.25 CPD hour:

CPD Quiz

The following CPD quiz is accredited by the FAAA at 0.25 hour.

Legislated CPD Area: Regulatory Compliance & Consumer Protection (0.25 hrs)

ASIC Knowledge Requirements: Regulatory Environment (0.25 hrs)

please log in to start this quiz

———–

References:
[1] https://www.asic.gov.au/regulatory-resources/financial-services/financial-advice/professional-standards/
[2] https://www.asic.gov.au/about-asic/news-centre/news-items/asic-issues-update-on-compliance-with-the-financial-adviser-qualifications-standard/
[3] https://www.asic.gov.au/about-asic/news-centre/news-items/asic-renews-warning-for-afs-licensees-ahead-of-deadline-for-financial-advisers/
[4] https://www.moneymanagement.com.au/asics-final-warning-shows-15-advice-industry-risk/
[5] https://www.ifa.com.au/the-final-countdown-2300-advisers-still-at-risk-of-missing-education-deadline/
[6] https://www.moneymanagement.com.au/registered-but-unqualified-far-records-reveal-advice-discrepancy/
[7] https://www.asic.gov.au/about-asic/news-centre/news-items/asic-issues-update-on-compliance-with-the-financial-adviser-qualifications-standard/
[8] https://www.asic.gov.au/about-asic/news-centre/news-items/asic-issues-update-on-compliance-with-the-financial-adviser-qualifications-standard/
[9] https://www.legislation.gov.au/F2021L01848/latest/text
[10] https://www.professionalplanner.com.au/2023/04/the-sun-wont-set-on-the-experience-pathway/
[11] https://www.asic.gov.au/regulatory-resources/financial-services/financial-advice/professional-standards/accessing-the-experienced-provider-pathway/
[12] https://www.asic.gov.au/regulatory-resources/financial-services/financial-advice/professional-standards/accessing-the-experienced-provider-pathway/
[13] https://www.asic.gov.au/about-asic/news-centre/find-a-media-release/2024-releases/24-142mr-asic-urges-afs-licensees-to-correct-records-on-the-financial-advisers-register/
[14] https://www.adviservoice.com.au/2025/12/faaa-calls-for-advisers-to-check-records-to-ensure-they-are-eligible-to-provide-financial-advice-into-2026/
[15] https://www.asic.gov.au/regulatory-resources/financial-services/financial-advice/professional-standards/qualifications-standard/assessing-relevant-provider-qualifications/
[16] https://www.asic.gov.au/regulatory-resources/financial-services/financial-advice/professional-standards/qualifications-standard/updating-the-financial-advisers-register-qualifications-and-training-details/
[17] https://www.moneymanagement.com.au/asic-reveals-adviser-qualification-review-outcome/

The post CPD: ASIC’s 2026 review of qualification compliance – practical implications appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Stephen Sloane

Ask a room of advice principals whether their offshore support is properly structured and most of them will say yes. But our experience suggests the answer is not always as clear.

Some of the arrangements we see raise questions about whether they would survive scrutiny. That gap, between what principals believe they’ve built and what they’ve actually built, is where the risk sits.

It matters more now, with higher penalties under the Fair Work Act from 1 July 2026 and renewed regulatory attention on sham contracting. The cost of getting the structure wrong is climbing, and the scrutiny is sharpening.

Offshore support is no longer unusual in Australian advice. As capacity pressure builds, more firms are moving administration, paraplanning and client servicing offshore. That’s a sensible answer to a real problem. The problem isn’t the decision to offshore. It’s treating the arrangement as an informal resourcing fix rather than part of the firm’s operating model.

Here’s what trips them up

Whether someone is a contractor or an employee isn’t decided by the label on the agreement alone. It’s decided by the practical reality of how the relationship works. If your offshore paraplanner keeps set hours, works inside your systems, takes day-to-day direction from your team and performs an ongoing role, a contract calling them a contractor may not settle the question. Depending on how and where the arrangement was established, employment, tax and local legal obligations may need to be considered.

That’s not a technicality. Where a worker has been misclassified, the consequences can include penalties, potential backpay, superannuation or PAYG withholding liabilities, depending on the circumstances and the jurisdictions involved. The financial exposure can grow quickly. For a profession already under close regulatory watch, the reputational hit can land alongside it.

So how do capable firms end up here? Usually because offshore was treated as a cost decision, not a structural one. The aim was a cheaper hour, not a better operating model. Someone found good people overseas, agreed a rate and built the relationship from there. The saving showed up straight away. The risk stayed out of sight until something forced it into view. In offshore support, the cheapest arrangement is often the most expensive.

None of this is an argument against offshoring. Across the firms we work with, structured offshore teams are one of the clearest routes to real capacity. The distinction that matters is between offshore support that’s deliberately structured and support that’s improvised.

Structured support starts with the arrangement itself: people engaged through an appropriate structure, with the relevant obligations in each jurisdiction understood and met. Then comes supervision. Someone owns the work, sets the standard and answers for the quality. It runs on defined roles, documented processes and secure systems, so client data is protected and the firm can explain exactly how the work gets done. That’s a team built on purpose, not a handful of individual contracts held together by good intentions.

That version of offshore is leverage. It takes work off the adviser that they never should have carried. It holds up under scrutiny and makes the business steadier rather than more fragile. The improvised version may clear the same work, but it can quietly introduce a risk the principal can’t see and hasn’t priced.

There’s a second cost that rarely gets counted

When an offshore arrangement is improvised, the knowledge often sits with one or two people and nowhere else. No documented process, no backup and no shared standard. If they leave, the firm can lose capacity overnight and inherit a compliance clean-up at the same time. That’s not a team. It’s a dependency.

This is where firms get caught. A model that saves twenty hours a week but can’t withstand legal or regulatory scrutiny, a client complaint or a buyer’s due diligence hasn’t solved the firm’s problem. It’s swapped a capacity problem for a structural one.

The firms getting this right aren’t necessarily the ones spending the least. They treat offshore as part of their operating model, with the same rigour they’d apply anywhere else in a regulated business. They know who does what, who supervises it and how the arrangement would be explained to a regulator, a buyer or a client. It was designed deliberately and reviewed regularly, not assembled by accident and left to drift.

If you’re reviewing your own set-up, the test is simple enough. Can you show your offshore staff are engaged and classified appropriately for the jurisdictions involved, and can you explain who supervises their work and how quality, continuity and data security are maintained? If the answer isn’t clear, the model may be more exposed than it appears, however well it’s running today.

Offshore support will keep growing because the capacity pressure behind it isn’t going away. The firms that benefit will be the ones that build it properly. The firms that get caught will be the ones that mistake a cheaper hour for a better structure.

Leverage isn’t the reward for cutting costs. It’s what you get from building the right structure.

The post Offshore isn’t the risk – doing it without structure is appeared first on AdviserVoice.

The IMAP Awards are recognised as the leading Award program for what is now a $300bn segment of financial services, honouring best practice in advice and portfolio management.

The awards cover both single sector asset classes and multi asset class programs delivered as either MDA portfolios or platform based SMAs.

The IMAP Licensee Award and Boutique Licensee Award specifically recognise managed account programs developed by Advice practices and licensees that are integrated into their advice process.

IMAP also recognises the two additional areas of Responsible Investing and Innovation within Managed Accounts.

The IMAP Awards take into account quantitative analysis and qualitative judgement.

The Awards are adjudicated by a panel of independent researchers and other specialists. Australian Ethical are sponsors of the Responsible Investing Award, Centric are sponsors of the Boutique Licensee Award and S&P DJI sponsor the Multi Asset Award. IMAP and S&P DJI have worked together to develop a multi asset benchmark as part of this years Multi Asset Award.

SuitabilityHub are the IMAP Managed Account Awards Technology Partner.

The Finalists for 2026 are:

Licensee Managed Account

• Morgan Stanley
• Perpetual Private
• RSM

Boutique Licensee Managed Account

• Fin-X Wealth
• GDA
• Mont Wealth Advisors
• Oakleigh
• Strategic Wealth Lifestage

Responsible Investing Portfolio

• Implemented Portfolios
• Lonsec
• Russell Investment Management

Australian Equities

• Akambo Investment Management
• Antares
• Lonsec Investment Solutions
• Pendal
• Resonant Asset Management

International Equities

• Loftus Peak
• Morgan Stanley
• PPM Private Portfolio Managers

Multi Asset

• Betashares
• Drummond Capital
• Lonsec Investment Solutions
• MLCAMMorgan Stanley
• Russell Investment Management

Innovation

• Akambo
• Drummond Capital Partners
• Findex Group – Specialised Private Capital (SPC)
• MST Financial
• Philo Capital Advisers
• PortfolioCloud

Fixed Interest

• BondAdviser
• Cameron Harrison
• MST Financial

Retirement

• Betashares
• Lonsec
• Russell Investment Management

The post IMAP announces 2026 Managed Account Awards Finalists appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Tony Vidler

To get prospects to buy your advice and change direction you have to “sell emotion” and support it with logic, right? Not quite….there is a piece missing in this formula which is is largely accepted as the methodology for selling intangibles I believe.

I believe that the missing ingredient is “beliefs”, and it is understanding the buyers beliefs to begin with which enables a great professional to figure out how to make the advice both palatable and actionable to a prospect.

Let’s use a simple example to illustrate what I mean.

Say you were a financial adviser focusing upon long term financial independence planning and you were dealing with a prospect who had 10 years to go until retirement.

During our initial discussion we have established that the prospect has a vision and desire of living a retirement lifestyle which is largely unchanged from their existing lifestyle – albeit without the “working for a living” part. They still want to go on an annual overseas holiday, drink wine and dine out, and play lots of golf or whatever around the country.

Quick number-crunching of the sort that we can all do in 2 minutes on a calculator shows the logical extent of the problem: they are currently on track to run out of money on the second Tuesday after they turn 65.  They have nothing of consequence saved for the future in other words, but have a vision that life will be wonderful and abundant.

Not an uncommon situation in reality, although perhaps I have exaggerated slightly.  There is however frequently an enormous gap between a prospect’s financial capacity and their voracity.  A big gap between what they have and do and what they expect they will be able to have and do in other words.  The barrier to change is their beliefs.

That is the area which we professionals often fail to investigate and understand, and as such it becomes the barrier to getting the prospects to buy our advice.

Gong back to the example for a moment, the barrier here will typically be a belief that “all is well” and there is no requirement for planning. Perhaps an illogical belief in a social welfare system that will support them for life…perhaps a more logical belief that an inheritance will take care of everything…perhaps an entirely irrational belief such as “we will win the lottery and not have to worry”.  But there is a belief issue of some sort.

Until the prospects beliefs are known no amount of logic and no amount of emotional “selling” will shift them to follow advice which is rational.  To them, your rationale is irrelevant.

Obviously the first step is to uncover whatever beliefs prospects hold, in addition to the necessary understanding of the facts & figures, as well as determining what their goals are.  The easiest question in the world to begin uncovering beliefs that may be barriers is a direct one, but without being confrontational:

“The first thing we need to take into account is who else is contributing to your retirement before we worry about what you have to put in, so what do you expect from government, relatives, business sales or anything like that?”

The temptation for many professionals once the prospect answers is to challenge any illogical or irrational beliefs.  That is a surefire way to lose a prospect straight away.  Challenging a belief with logic is tantamount to saying “you are stupid; just listen to me”.  Generally people don’t respond well to that….

What we have to do is create doubt.  We have to create a situation where they question their own belief themselves. We do that by asking

Rather than have the logical answer (or facts) and then try to convince prospects by tying that to emotional selling points (e.g. fear, greed, love), it is far more effective to appear to not have the answer early on in the process.

The more “what if’s” that are asked, the more doubt which is created.  The more doubt that is created about a prospects existing belief-set then the greater their likelihood of anchoring their future beliefs on the facts and logic which you subsequently present.

Jumping straight to facts or logic to begin with, as so many professionals tend to do, doesn’t shake the incumbent belief-set.  That is one of the reasons why so many prospects do not convert, or are just sheer hard work to convince of the right way forward.  You have to lead them to change their own mind themselves…you will not change their belief set by challenging it with pure logic.

Get some “what if’s” into your advice process before presenting logic or recommendations and you will get more prospects to buy your advice.

The post Getting more prospects to buy your advice appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Kimberly Sutherland

LexisNexis^® Risk Solutions warns that the latest wave of AI-generated deepfake documents, images and liveness videos could leave organizations significantly exposed if their identity and customer onboarding checks fail to keep pace.

The global fraud prevention specialist says it has seen a 180% year-on-year increase in attacks and warns that the quality and sophistication of deepfake documents and images improves daily. With Juniper Research predicting 100 billion identity-related checks will be carried out this year and one in every 100 failed checks will contain a deepfake, experts at LexisNexis Risk Solutions warn businesses everywhere to expect rising volumes of daily attacks targeting their digital services.

“Deepfakes vastly complicate digital identity verification. Protecting against this surge of attacks requires a solid line of defense incorporating end-to-end capture, fraud analysis and liveness checks.” says Kimberly Sutherland, global head of fraud and identity at LexisNexis Risk Solutions. “Even the smallest gap in your defenses is like an open window that a fraudster can climb through.”

Bad actors use deepfakes to bypass identity checks and create new accounts or take control of existing user accounts to make unauthorized payments, withdrawals and online purchases, launder the proceeds of crime, or abuse new customer bonus incentives. One in every 11 new account creations in 2025 was a fraud attack and almost a fifth of all reported fraud involved unauthorized access of customer accounts, according to the company’s latest Cybercrime Report.

As deepfakes become more realistic, identity checks need to be capable of spotting nuanced flaws in document security features and closely examine facial expression and skin tone.

Sutherland continued, “Highly realistic deepfakes call for forensic examination of hundreds of security features: document structure, image integrity, holograms, etching and microtext. Deepfakes typically fail on several minor flaws, as opposed to physical forgeries that fail on one major issue, but they are not easy to spot with the human eye during manual checks. The same goes for deepfake images and videos. Checks need to assess micro movements in facial muscles, analyse light reflection and detect image manipulation and injection tactics.”

Analysis shows that fraudsters favor high-value, reusable identity documents, including passports, driver’s licenses and national ID cards, with the most highly sought after documents issued by the United States, United Kingdom, Germany and France.

Shane O’Sullivan, research analyst at Juniper Research, added, “As digital identity verification evolves, the core requirements shift toward the technical ability to integrate multiple trust signals into a coherent system architecture. Effective solutions depend on the coordination of document authentication, biometric liveness detection and real-time risk analysis within a single workflow. Increasingly, fraud detection system success is defined by how well it can detect advanced threats such as synthetic identities and deepfakes while maintaining interoperability across standards and minimising latency and user friction.”

Sutherland concluded, “The risk to businesses is real from both a financial and reputational standpoint. The reality is that AI-generated attacks are practically doubling year over year and getting more sophisticated with every attack.”

The post One in every 100 identity check failures involves a deepfake document, image or liveness video appeared first on AdviserVoice.