Tony Vidler

It is our livelihood in many respects, yet one of the vaguest phrases we use is “personal service”.  What is a personal service is not necessarily the same as a personalised service, and what is personal to one client may not be deemed a personal service to another.

So how personalised should your professional services offer be, taking into account the types of clients you work with (and the varied expectations of different demographics and niches), and the type of work you do?  In other words, how much customisation should go into your personal service promise, and how much should be standardised?

Well, if we take a look at the structural differences – or service offers – of another profession it can help us to understand what might be possible for our financial services practices.

The medical profession consists of many different specialists and practitioners or carers with clearly defined skills sets and responsibilities.  Generally their skill sets or areas of responsibility define the service offer they provide, and the degree of personal “service” that their clients can expect.  In many professional services fields however, a practitioners area of expertise doesn’t define the value they provide quite so readily.  We can begin to think about the service offering we might provide though by looking at the medical profession as it does have clarity around where each professional sits in the value chain.

It is immediately apparent that a high level of standardisation in service delivery makes sense when the focus of the discipline is upon immediate delivery of a treatment.  Conversely, a far higher level of customisation or personalisation is required and expected when treatment is bespoke and requiring more advanced skills or knowledge to be able to deliver the a service effectively.

A further layer of consideration is the expectation of the customer.  Within this example, a client of a nurse in an emergency room will expect a higher degree of “personal” attention than the same client does when they visit the pharmacist afterwards to have the prescription fulfilled for ongoing treatment.  Make no mistake: both professionals have a role to play in this process for the client.  Both can kill.  Both can cure.  Full treatment requires both on many occasions.

However the pharmacist has an extremely limited relationship with the client.  Theirs is typically a transactional relationship only.  An order is fulfilled.  It is critical that the order is fulfilled precisely, and there is zero tolerance for error in doing so.  Both the nurse and the pharmacist will rely heavily upon standardised processes wherever possible to minimise risk to the client, and maximise the possibility of correct treatment being administered.  Anyone who has had a stint in hospital will know what I mean: you get fed up with telling everyone your date of birth and full name, right?  That’s standardised service – everyone follows the process, and everyone gets the process delivered to them whether they want it or not.

This is not the case however when the emphasis of the professional is upon detailed diagnosis which is unique to the client.  The client experience is more personalised – although the client experience with the surgeon (who they will actually barely talk to) is almost entirely focussed upon achieving a specified result.  It is a rather dispassionate process focussed upon the result rather then the person called a patient.

The process with a psychotherapist is hardly dispassionate or aloof though.  That is eminently personal and requires a trusted relationship which evolves. The psychotherapist follows a process, however there is inherently more flexibility and personalisation within that process than there is with the surgeon.

So how “personal” should OUR personal service be?

If we were to think about a professional services firm in the same context then it follows that the degree of “personal service” we should provide would be largely dictated by:

• the degree (or depth) of specialised knowledge we offer the market place
• the types of clients we wish to work with, and their expectations for the fee level we aspire to
• whether we anticipate a high contact/high engagement ongoing relationship, or a somewhat ad hoc commercial relationship triggered by client demand
• the commercial capability of our practice to develop and deliver either standardised services or highly bespoke ones – or both
• the style of delivery we prefer (are you the surgeon who just wants to focus on the task and obtain a successful result, or do you want high client interaction on an ongoing basis?)
• the brand of the practice, and what “it” promises to the market. In a practice with more than one practitioner there will be a range of personal professional views as to what constitutes “personal service”, and over and above these potentially differing views there is the position adopted by the practice itself (being the uniform approach which all the practitioners have signed onto as a minimum)
• the anticipated the focus of our solutions: transactional/execution services, or highly personalised diagnostic reviews resulting in bespoke plans? Or somewhere in between?  Or do we cater to both ends of the spectrum?

It is possible to cater to both ends of the spectrum (100% standardised as well as 100% bespoke), and I encourage professionals to consider building a practice which does so. There is typically room for both with a client base, given there will be clients who are in a transactional/execution-only mindset (perhaps because of the stage of life or circumstances), and there will be those who require our version of psychotherapy.

There is also a distinct possibility that a practitioner might fit into multiple boxes.  For instance the diagram could easily have the titles substituted as follows:

• Nurse = Insurance Broker
• Pharmacist = Mortgage Broker
• Psychotherapist = Financial Planner
• Brain Surgeon = Estate Planner

It is conceivable that a practitioner who was say a financial planner who also provided mortgage broking services could have a highly standardised, execution-focussed, broking service whilst also having a high-touch and highly bespoke financial planning service for those clients wanting long term personal planning.

Each practice and each practitioner will have their own view of what personal service is – and so too do clients of course. In the bid to develop a profitable practice where there is minimal waste and a homogeneous client experience though we should begin by identifying those services or clients where standardisation of service delivery is optimal – for us as well as for the clients.  Fully customised personal service should be reserved for those with the desire and the budget to fund it.

Defining which activities and elements of advice or service fit into the standardised version and which are reserved for customised service experiences is the challenge which each practitioner must resolve to their own satisfaction.

The post How “personal” should your personal service be? appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Nick Eatock

More than four in five Australian financial advice firms are now using artificial intelligence (AI), yet fewer than half have formal policies governing its use, according to new research from global adviser technology provider intelliflo.

The inaugural Australian Advice Efficiency Survey^[1] reveals an advice profession rapidly adopting AI and digital tools to improve productivity, while simultaneously grappling with capacity constraints, inefficient workflows and growing client expectations for digital engagement.

The findings come as the industry looks to technology to help expand access to financial advice amid persistent adviser shortages and ongoing regulatory reform efforts designed to make advice more affordable and accessible.

According to the survey, more than 80 per cent of advice firms are already using AI, with file notes emerging as the most common use case, followed by advice document generation and client engagement activities.

However, fewer than half of respondents have implemented formal AI governance policies, highlighting a growing gap between adoption and oversight.

The survey also found:

• Only one in 10 advisers rate their current business process efficiency positively, while 90 per cent have a neutral or negative view of their operational efficiency.
• Four in five advice firms have automated less than half of their workflows.
• Conversely, 80 per cent would like between 50 and 100 per cent of their workflows to be automated.
• Onboarding and SOA/ROA generation were identified as the areas where advisers most want greater automation.
• Nearly three-quarters of advisers now operate a hybrid client engagement model combining virtual and face-to-face meetings.
• Technology limitations are the second-largest constraint on business growth, behind adviser capacity.
• More than half of advisers believe responsibility for AI-generated errors ultimately sits with the advice business itself.

Nick Eatock, CEO and co-founder of intelliflo, said the findings show the advice profession has moved beyond experimenting with AI and is now embedding it into core business operations.

“AI has firmly entered the mainstream of financial advice,” Eatock said. “We’re seeing advisers use AI not just to plug administrative gaps, but increasingly to support core advice functions, client engagement and documentation. The profession has clearly recognised the role technology can play in helping advisers operate more efficiently and serve more Australians.”

However, Eatock said the survey also highlighted an important challenge for the profession.

“The speed of AI adoption is outpacing the development of governance frameworks inside many advice businesses.”

“Advisers are understandably enthusiastic about the productivity gains AI can deliver, but they’re also telling us they want greater certainty around how these tools should be governed, monitored and applied within a regulated advice environment.”

The research suggests advisers remain under significant operational pressure despite growing investment in technology.

Almost half of respondents identified adviser capacity as the single biggest barrier to growing their client base, while only a small minority believe advisers can sustainably service more than 250 clients under their current operating model.

Eatock said these findings reinforce the need for advice businesses to continue investing in technology and workflow optimisation as the profession seeks to close Australia’s advice gap.

“Technology alone won’t solve the capacity challenge, but it is one of the most powerful levers available to the profession,” he said.

“Australia has approximately 15,000 financial advisers supporting millions of Australians who need help making financial decisions. If we want advice to become more accessible, businesses need tools that reduce administrative burden, improve efficiency and allow advisers to spend more time doing what they do best – helping clients.”

The survey also found advisers remain highly focused on improving digital experiences for clients, with secure communication, digital onboarding, workflow automation and system integration among the most requested enhancements.

“As the industry moves through regulatory reform and prepares for the next generation of clients, firms that successfully combine technology, efficient processes and strong governance frameworks will be best positioned to grow,” Eatock said.

“Ultimately, the goal isn’t to replace advisers with technology. It’s to use technology to amplify adviser capability, improve client outcomes and help more Australians access quality financial advice.”

Read the report.

The post Australian advisers embrace AI, but governance lags as firms battle capacity constraints appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Blair Vernon

AMP is calling for social media companies to be included in reforms to strengthen governance and accountability across the financial system following the collapse of Shield and First Guardian.

ASIC research found close to two thirds of Australians aged 18 to 28 use social media for financial information and guidance. As more Australians turn to social media as a gateway to financial decisions, AMP says digital platforms should be part of any comprehensive framework designed to protect consumers from financial harm

AMP Chief Executive Officer Blair Vernon said: “The Government is right to examine the responsibilities of trustees, fund managers, advisers, licensees and lead generators. Those of us running financial services businesses, including AMP, should expect scrutiny and accept our responsibilities.

“But social media cannot be left out. ASIC’s own research shows social media is increasingly being used to inform financial decision-making for younger Australians. A social media post, search result or targeted advertisement can be someone’s first contact with an investment opportunity, leading to decisions about savings they have spent years building.

“Some social media platforms have introduced checks on financial advertising. Those checks are welcome, but they are only part of the comprehensive governance framework needed to protect retirement savings and hold businesses accountable where they contribute to financial harm.

“Advice businesses and superannuation trustees are helping fund the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort, including many small businesses with no involvement in the failures it covers.

“Where social media companies have helped facilitate harm, and potentially profited from it, their contribution to the scheme should also be given due consideration.

“The Compensation Scheme of Last Resort is more than a compensation mechanism. It is a powerful way to drive accountability and, most importantly, prevention across the financial system.

“Australians should be able to access useful financial information and quality advice wherever they seek it. Protecting them requires accountability across the entire financial value chain, including the digital platforms that increasingly sit at its front door.”

The post AMP calls for social media accountability for financial harm appeared first on AdviserVoice.

The jury described Retirement Manager^TM as “a thoughtful and highly effective application of human-centred design that successfully translates sophisticated retirement modelling into clear, actionable guidance”.

The judges also highlighted the tool’s intuitive language, progressive disclosure and decision-support features, including the Retirement Income Confidence Score, which turns abstract risk concepts into emotionally resonant signals.

The jury commended the Aware Super team for “setting a benchmark that broadens access to personalised retirement advice at scale”.

Aware Super Group Executive Member Growth Steven Travis said: “We are thrilled with this award, which validates that we are succeeding in delivering innovative solutions for our 1.3 million members that support great retirement outcomes.

“Of course, the greatest satisfaction is in seeing our members start their retirement journey with confidence after building their plan with Retirement Manager^TM.”

The post Aware Super’s Retirement Manager wins Gold at 2026 Australian Good Design Awards appeared first on AdviserVoice.

The growing use of AI for financial guidance is creating a major consumer protection challenge and reshaping adviser-client engagement models.

Move over, Google

The expression “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing” seems particularly appropriate to financial decisions, where the amounts at stake and the inherent complexity make the risk of consumer harm significant.

More than a decade ago, search engines democratised access to knowledge, and many advisers will have stories of clients who came to appointments preloaded with misunderstandings and misguided questions, courtesy of time spent with ‘Dr Google’.

Today, generative AI tools make Dr Google look like an intern, as AI platforms can provide an immediate, confident, and seemingly personalised response to almost any financial question you can think of. The danger – of consumers acting on incorrect or inappropriate information – has been amplified, and advisers are in the impact zone.

In early 2026, Vanguard’s global chief economist, Joe Davis, suggested ChatGPT may now be the ‘largest provider of financial advice in the world’ – at least in the US^[1]. In Australia, there is also clear evidence of a shift in where Australians seek financial information. Around 9.1 million Australians visited ASIC’s Moneysmart website in 2025–26, down around 17 per cent from the frequently reported 11 million^[2]. ASIC, in explaining the decrease, said changing search behaviour, including the use of AI platforms and AI-generated search summaries, was affecting how consumers access information^[3].

Separately, research^[4] from McCrindle, released in September 2026, suggests more than three million Australians are already using AI to help manage their financial activity. Among Gen Z, the proportion rises to one in four.

This does not mean consumers have stopped valuing professional advice. On the contrary, the McCrindle study found that 42 per cent of Australians were very or extremely likely to act on advice from a paid, in-person financial adviser, compared with just 18 per cent for an AI platform^[5]. But it does suggest the sequence of engagement is changing – clients may consult AI before seeking advice, then bring its conclusions into adviser conversations.

The resulting consumer protection challenge extends beyond obviously false information. A response can be broadly correct but still produce a poor outcome for an individual when applied without the necessary context.

This article examines why AI-generated financial guidance can expose consumers to harm, including the blurred distinction between general information and personal advice and the lack of accountability when an AI-generated answer causes loss. It then considers how advisers can respond constructively to the assumptions clients bring into the advice process, including the privacy implications of using AI tools.

Information, guidance or financial advice?

While the distinction between financial information, general advice, and personal advice is seared into the brain of advisers, consumers are largely oblivious to the difference, especially when they are reading through an impressively detailed ‘financial plan’ from ChatGPT or Claude. This is problematic on a number of levels, including the extent to which that information seems accurate and personalised.

As a spokesperson for ASIC’s Moneysmart program explained: “AI is not bound by the same rules as a licensed financial adviser who has a duty to consider your circumstances before offering personal advice.”^[6]

The regulatory framework for personal advice thus becomes a critical dividing line, and accountability is one of the key differentiators between those sitting inside the framework and those sitting outside.

Under the Corporations Act 2001, a communication can constitute financial product advice if it is intended, or could reasonably be regarded as intended, to influence a decision about a financial product. It may be personal advice where the provider has considered the person’s objectives, financial situation or needs, or where a reasonable person might expect those matters to have been considered.

In Australia, licensed digital advice providers such as Otivo operate inside that framework, providing personal advice under an Australian financial services licence and producing statements of advice. General-purpose AI platforms do not generally operate within that model. ASIC’s Moneysmart warns that AI platforms are generally not licensed to provide personal financial advice. Otivo itself draws the same distinction in positioning its own service, noting that general-purpose tools “such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini are explicitly restricted from giving personal financial advice.”^[7]

To Pivot Wealth founder Ben Nash, the moment the line is crossed into personal advice is easy to spot: “[It’s] the moment a tool connects to someone’s bank data and starts answering ‘should I put the spare $500 a month into super or the mortgage.’”^[8]

The right answer to the wrong question

As Brisbane homebuyer Georgina Doll told the ABC^[9], when she used ChatGPT to model repayments across different home loan interest rates, she knew it was not always “100 per cent accurate”. But casually talking about margins for error – as if they were normal – significantly understates the potential scale of those errors. AI hallucinations are well documented, and despite the fact that models are learning and improving, the spectre of false information remains real.

As an ASIC spokesperson warned: “It is also not uncommon for AI models to hallucinate, or invent, information that has no basis in fact, so it is important to not trust its output implicitly.”^[10]

The pace of legislative change in Australia, and the complexity of rules around superannuation and Centrelink, make these margins for error razor thin. When Otivo presented ChatGPT with a hypothetical Australian retirement planning scenario, the response included outdated superannuation contribution limits and missed recent changes to pension eligibility entirely.^[11]

But the issue is bigger than just accuracy. An AI response does not have to contain false information to cause harm. It may be factually correct but still highly unsuitable for the person receiving it.

As one adviser observed: ‘AI-generated financial information is often not incorrect “in a vacuum”‘.^[12] The problem often lies in what the platform has not been asked and therefore has not considered. A client asking whether to salary sacrifice more into super might receive a technically correct explanation of concessional tax treatment, with no way for the model to know that the client is saving for a home deposit or already close to their contribution cap. So, while the tax explanation may be technically right, the resulting strategy may still be wrong.

An experiment reported by academics writing in The Conversation reinforces this point^[13]. When testing ChatGPT, Claude and Perplexity across five vulnerable-consumer scenarios, the models produced structured, practical-sounding responses but did not adequately account for vulnerability, even when it was stated explicitly in the prompt. The scenarios included a pregnant woman planning for maternity leave and a single parent considering a relative’s cryptocurrency tip. In some cases, the suggestions could have worsened the underlying financial harm.^[14]

If a licensed adviser missed this context, they could be held accountable for it, and a trip to AFCA could be on the cards. But when an AI platform misses it, there is no one to be held responsible, leaving consumers in the lurch when something goes wrong.

Plenty of trust, but no accountability

The risk is heightened when consumers place confidence in AI-generated guidance without understanding that it sits outside the protections applying to licensed financial advice.

When personal advice is provided by an Australian financial services licensee or its representative, the provider is subject to many legal obligations and must have an internal dispute resolution process. Consumers may also be able to take an unresolved complaint to the official external body – the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA). General-purpose AI platforms offer no such mechanisms for recourse. If a consumer follows an unsuitable answer and suffers a loss, there is no licensed advice provider against which to complain, and no AFCA or Compensation Scheme of Last Resort (CSLR) pathways available. As ASIC’s Moneysmart puts it plainly: “AI can help you learn, but it can’t take responsibility for your decisions.”^[15]

Nevertheless, consumers – especially younger ones – seem happy to place their faith in AI. ASIC’s 2026 Moneysmart research^[16] found that 64 per cent of Gen Z respondents trusted AI platforms for financial information and guidance. Almost the same proportion, 63 per cent, expressed confidence in the accuracy and appropriateness of AI-provided financial guidance. Among respondents aged 29 and over, both figures were lower, at 36 per cent. Separate research^[17] commissioned by AustralianSuper found that one in four Australians using AI for financial matters had acted on its information without checking another source.

Research from the UK illustrates how easily this confidence can lead consumers to believe they are ‘protected’. A 2026 Financial Conduct Authority survey^[18] of investors aged 18 to 40 found that 44 per cent mistakenly believed AI-generated financial information was regulated. Almost one-third wrongly believed they could obtain compensation through the Financial Services Compensation Scheme or the Financial Ombudsman Service if AI advice caused them loss.

While these are UK findings, the underlying consumer protection issue seems equally relevant in Australia. Trust in advice-like output may lead consumers to assume there is a regulated provider standing behind it.

For advisers, this becomes a practical consumer protection issue. If a client brings an AI-generated recommendation into a meeting, the first task is to establish how much weight they have placed on it and whether they have already acted. Then the adviser must diligently untangle the facts from the fallacies, and effectively reset the client, using every soft skill and every ounce of diplomacy at their disposal.

Correcting clients without condescension

Increasingly, AI will change the starting point for many advice conversations. Rather than arriving as a ‘blank canvas’, many new clients will arrive with the answer to a question they have already asked and expect the adviser to confirm. Others will use AI to critique recommendations put forward by advisers. This should not be treated as a reflection on the adviser’s experience or competence. A client’s willingness to learn and appetite to understand more should be embraced, and it augurs well for a long-term, engaged client relationship. But starting a relationship on the right footing is critical.

When responding to a client who has used AI to research their options, the first priority is to establish whether the client has already acted on that research. If they have, the adviser must assess the consequences and determine whether corrective action is needed before examining how the recommendation was produced.

If the client has not acted, or once any immediate concern has been addressed, the adviser can turn to the AI exchange itself. Analysing the complete ‘chat’ matters because AI output depends heavily on how the question was framed and what the platform was told. Asking what the client found persuasive can also reveal the concern behind the question.

There is no need to disparage the technology or the client’s decision to use it. After all, most advisers are likely using AI themselves. Instead, consider framing a response this way: “That gives us a useful starting point. Let’s see whether the answer changes when we include the parts of your situation the platform may not have considered.”

This allows the adviser to demonstrate the missing context. In the salary-sacrifice example referenced earlier, that might mean showing how the recommendation changes once the client’s contribution history and need for accessible savings are considered. The issue is no longer that the AI was simply ‘wrong’. It is that the answer was based on an incomplete version of the client.

The adviser’s value in this situation does not come from winning an argument against ChatGPT or Claude. It comes from turning a plausible general answer into a decision that reflects the client’s actual circumstances. The following steps provide a practical way to approach that task.

A practical response to AI-generated guidance

When a client brings AI-generated financial guidance into the advice process:

1. Establish whether the client has acted. This determines whether the conversation is preventative or whether corrective action may already be required.
2. Ask to see the complete exchange. Review the client’s original prompt and the full response, not a summary or isolated recommendation.
3. Find out what persuaded them. Understanding which part of the answer seemed useful helps reveal the client’s underlying concern.
4. Check the claims. Verify calculations, contribution limits and other factual content against current, authoritative Australian sources.
5. Apply the missing context. Test the proposed course of action against the client’s complete circumstances and existing strategy.
6. Explain what changes the answer. Show the client why a factually plausible response may not be appropriate for them, then agree on what happens next.
7. Record the discussion. Retain relevant AI output and document the advice provided in response.

A further question is what personal or financial information the client has already shared with the platform, an issue considered below.

Privacy – the personalisation paradox

If a lack of context explains why some AI guidance is inappropriate or incomplete, giving an AI platform more information should help it produce a more personalised response. The paradox is that the information needed to improve the response may expose the client to another form of harm: loss of privacy.

This concern is already affecting Australians’ willingness to use AI for financial purposes. Colonial First State research¹⁹ released in March 2026 identified data security and privacy as among the biggest barriers to greater use of AI in managing personal finances. While 42 per cent of respondents were comfortable using AI for everyday financial activities such as budgeting and comparing products, only 29 per cent were comfortable with its involvement in investment management.

ASIC’s Moneysmart warns consumers to consider how information entered into an AI platform will be collected, stored and used^[20]. It cautions against providing personal data such as date of birth and financial information – details which could easily find their way into a chat about life insurance sums insured or superannuation switching.

What happens to a person’s data once it has been entered can become harder to verify.

Advisers should therefore ask not only what the client asked the platform, but what information they provided in the process. Where identifying or sensitive information has been disclosed, the client may need to review the platform’s privacy controls and delete stored chats where possible. If login credentials were included, passwords should be changed immediately.

The same caution applies when advisers use AI in their own work. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner says the Privacy Act applies to uses of AI involving personal information. As a matter of best practice, it recommends that organisations do not enter personal information, particularly sensitive information, into publicly available generative AI tools because of the privacy risks involved.^[21]

Advisers should of course only use AI tools approved by their licensee and in accordance with their practice’s privacy and information-security policies.

Conclusion – a growing trend for advisers to adapt to

AI will increasingly be the first place consumers turn when they have a financial question. The consumer protection challenge is not to stop them from using it, but to prevent general information from being mistaken for personal advice, particularly when an incomplete answer could expose consumers to poor decisions, unsuitable products or financial loss.

This growing uptake of AI is reshaping the sequence of adviser-client engagement, far more dramatically than the arrival of Google ever did. A growing number of clients may consult AI before approaching an adviser and arrive with conclusions already formed. Advisers will need to adapt by treating those exchanges as part of the advice conversation, rather than a personal affront. They will need to become adept at untangling the information provided to a platform and the answers it provided. Rather than being a threat, this can actually be the basis for a strong demonstration of the value of professional advice – advice that is accurate, tailored, and subject to regulation and consumer recourse mechanisms.

If a little knowledge is dangerous when confidence runs ahead of understanding, then helping clients close that gap will become a vital role of professional advice and a critical driver of financial consumer protection.

Take the FAAA accredited quiz to earn 0.5 CPD hour:

CPD Quiz

The following CPD quiz is accredited by the FAAA at 0.5 hour.

Legislated CPD Area: Client Care & Practice (0.25 hrs) and Regulatory Compliance & Consumer Protection (0.25 hrs)

ASIC Knowledge Requirements: Client Engagement (0.25 hrs) and Regulatory Environment (0.25 hrs)

please log in to start this quiz

———–

References:
[1] https://www.ifa.com.au/chatgpt-the-largest-provider-financial-advice-in-the-world
[2] https://www.asic.gov.au/about-asic/news-centre/find-a-media-release/2026-releases/26-074mr-from-anxiety-to-action-helping-australians-to-plan-for-their-financial-future
[3] https://download.asic.gov.au/media/hotigt5a/asic-corporate-plan-2026-27-published-26-august-2026.pdf
[4] https://www.moneymanagement.com.au/financial-advice-meets-the-diy-generation
[5] Ibid.
[6] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-10-21/using-ai-chatgpt-for-financial-advice/105882042
[7] https://www.moneymanagement.com.au/otivo-unveils-personalised-digital-advice-app/
[8] Ibid.
[9] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-10-21/using-ai-chatgpt-for-financial-advice/105882042
[10] Ibid.
[11] https://www.professionalplanner.com.au/2026/04/people-are-already-using-ai-for-financial-advice-so-lets-make-it-safe/
[12] https://www.ifa.com.au/iadviser-the-invisible-risk-of-ai-financial-advice/
[13]https://theconversation.com/we-asked-chatgpt-claude-and-perplexity-for-financial-advice-what-we-got-was-practical-but-with-big-blind-spots-288948
[14] Ibid.
[15] https://moneysmart.gov.au/online-safety/ai-and-money-decisions
[16] https://download.asic.gov.au/media/3l1l0xpc/26-049mr-asic-moneysmart-gen-z-financial-behaviours-report-2026.pdf
[17] https://www.cyberdaily.au/digital-transformation/13928-australiansuper-finds-aussies-are-using-ai-for-financial-advice
[18] https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/young-investors-trust-ai-more-tv-or-celebrities
[19]https://www.cfs.com.au/about-us/media/cfs-tech-AI
[20] https://moneysmart.gov.au/online-safety/ai-and-money-decisions
[21]https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/privacy-guidance-for-organisations-and-government-agencies/guidance-on-privacy-and-the-use-of-commercially-available-ai-products

The post CPD: When a little knowledge is dangerous – countering the financial ‘guidance’ your clients are getting from AI appeared first on AdviserVoice.

A strong ethical framework provides the foundation for a trusted and respected financial advice profession.

This article, proudly sponsored by GSFM, examines standards seven to twelve of the Code of Ethics. Standards one to six were examined in a previous article you can read here.

The Financial Planners and Advisers Code of Ethics 2019 (Code) is principles based. It applies to a wide range of situations that require advisers to exercise their professional judgement. Professionalism is a frequent topic of discussion in the industry, and for good reason: it’s essential to the future success of financial advice.

What is professionalism?

Professionalism covers a lot of ground. It means delivering on your promises, putting your client first and providing services to the best of your ability. It means keeping your knowledge and training current, understanding the laws and principles that define your role and operating within them. Professionalism helps you inspire others, both within and outside the industry, and gives you a sense of satisfaction at having delivered real value to your clients through your guidance and advice.

A guiding principle of professional financial advice is to always act in the best interests of your clients, in the same way any reasonable person would expect their doctor, dentist, accountant or other service provider to act: professionally, with your interests front and centre.

A focus on professionalism benefits you, your practice, the financial advice industry and, crucially, your clients. As the industry becomes increasingly professional, those who lack the appropriate professionalism stand out and, over time, will be filtered out. Professionalism builds trust, and trust builds long term relationships. Both are essential to both a successful advice practice and a successful, growing industry.

The Code of Ethics

The Code is comprised of twelve standards which, in turn, are based on five values. These were detailed in part one of this article.

The standards are not intended to provide a compliance checklist; the intent is for you to make active decisions that result in ethical behaviour and the prioritisation of every client’s best interests. Section 961B of the Corporations Act 2001 (the Act) lists the steps an adviser must take to satisfy the ‘best interests’ standard, which is central to the Code.

In brief, these steps are:

• To identify the client’s financial situation, objectives and needs
• To identify the subject matter of the advice sought by the client (whether explicitly or implicitly)
• To identify the client’s relevant circumstances – the objectives, financial situation and needs that would reasonably be considered as relevant to advice sought on that subject matter
• To ensure this information is complete and correct; enquiries should be made if gaps or inconsistencies are apparent
• To identify whether you have the relevant expertise to provide the client with advice on the subject matter sought and, if not, decline to provide the advice
• When considering the advice sought, whether it would be reasonable to consider recommending a financial product; if it is deemed relevant, they should only recommend a product after thoroughly investigating the most appropriate products relevant to the client’s circumstances
• When advising the client, the financial adviser must base all judgements on the client’s relevant circumstances
• Take any other step that, at the time the advice is provided, would reasonably be regarded as being in the best interests of the client, given the client’s relevant circumstances

This final point is designed as a ‘catch all’, a statement that encapsulates the spirit of the legislation. Irrespective of the client’s requirements, the advice must be underpinned by knowledge of the client and their circumstances.

While the best interest duty applies to retail clients, a similar fiduciary duty is required for dealings with wholesale clients. To meet the obligations imposed by section 961B of the Act  is the basis of ethical behaviour in dealing with clients.

Relevant providers

The legislation identifies ‘relevant providers’ as those who must abide by the Code. Relevant providers are defined as an individual who is:

• A financial services licensee
• An authorised representative, an employee or director of a financial services licensee
• An employee or director of a related body corporate of a financial services licensee

Any individual listed on ASIC’s Financial Advisers Register as authorised to provide personal financial advice to retail clients – as the licensee or on behalf of the licensee – in relation to relevant financial products is considered to be a relevant provider.

The Code is compulsory for all relevant providers and responsibility for applying the principles of the Code falls on individuals. In the event of a review by a licensee or regulatory bodies, advisers must be prepared to provide details of their interpretation and application of the Code in relation to specific clients and situations.

Financial services licensees also have a role under the Act to monitor and enforce compliance with the Code. Licensees are required to structure their business operations in a way that facilitates their authorised representatives being able to operate ethically and comply with each of the twelve standards that comprise the Code.

Ethical competencies

The Code contains twelve standards grouped under four ethical competencies:

1. Ethical Behaviour (standards one to three)
2. Client Care (standards four to six)
3. Quality Process (standards seven to nine)
4. Professional Commitment (standards ten to twelve)

Each of these ethical competencies contains three standards, which, in turn, contain ethical principles. In applying these principles, advisers are expected to exercise professional judgement according to the specific circumstances of each individual client. As stated earlier, the standards are not a compliance checklist. Rather, they are a set of guidelines to ensure your advice is in the best interests of each client, steered by the values that underpin the Code.

While ethics is defined in many different ways, it can be broadly distilled as a system of moral principles that is concerned with what is good for individuals and society. In the world of financial advice, it means treating your clients fairly, acting in their best interests always and acting with honesty, integrity and competence. In short, embodying the values upon which the Code is based.

Quality process

Quality processes encompass standards seven to nine and while these standards encapsulate all the values upon which the standards are based, those of honesty, integrity and competence are highlighted.

Figure one highlights each of the standards that fall under the competency ‘Quality Process’.

Standard seven

The purpose of standard seven is to ensure clients freely give ‘informed consent’ to benefits the adviser (or licensee) will receive, and that this consent is obtained before the client receives advice. It is important to note that benefits are not limited to fees and charges.

As well as disclosing – and receiving consent for – the charges to the client and benefits to the adviser or licensee, standard seven requires that:

• Unless expressly permitted by the Act, advisers may not receive any benefits, in connection with acting for a client, that derive from a third party other than that adviser’s principal
• Fees should reflect the benefit to clients over the long term balanced by the costs in providing the advice
• Advisers must be satisfied that any benefits received in connection with acting for the client are fair and reasonable and represent value for money.

The requirement to limit the benefits an adviser may derive from a third party is intended to reduce the likelihood of third party influence on the advice given. Many of the recent cases involving advisers and licensees with respect to the First Guardian and Shield Master Funds would likely have breached standard seven.

As regularly highlighted by the trade media, breaches of standard seven continue to blight the financial advice industry, which reflects poorly on all participants. That itself is a breach of an ethical standard, as you will read later in this article.

Case study – Undisclosed third-party benefits

Adviser Craig operated as an authorised representative of ACME Advice, a mid-sized licensee. Over an 18-month period, Craig received referrals from a lead generation firm that cold-called consumers about their superannuation. Clients referred through this channel were consistently advised to roll their existing super into a choice fund on a specific platform, then invest a large share of that balance into two unlisted managed investment schemes marketed as offering strong, stable returns.

Craig did not disclose to these clients that the lead generation firm received a fee for each successful referral, structured as a percentage of funds invested, paid indirectly through arrangements with the platform and fund promoters. Statements of Advice referenced ‘adviser service fees’ but gave no detail on the source, size or structure of these third-party payments. Clients signed consent forms bundled into the broader advice paperwork, without a clear or separate explanation of what they were consenting to.

Standard seven requires that a client give free, prior and informed consent to all benefits an adviser or their principal receives in connection with acting for that client, and that any fees charged are fair, reasonable and represent value for money. Advisers may not receive benefits from a third party outside their principal unless expressly permitted under the Act.

Craig’s conduct breached standard seven in several ways:

• Clients were not given a clear, separate explanation of the referral payment arrangement before receiving advice, so consent was not properly informed
• The benefits flowing from the lead generator to the platform and fund promoters, and indirectly connected to Craig’s advice, were not disclosed at all
• The fees charged bore no clear relationship to the scope or complexity of the advice given, undermining the ‘fair and reasonable’ requirement.

When the underlying schemes – the Shield Master Fund and First Guardian Master Fund – experienced severe liquidity issues and investor losses mounted, ASIC’s review of adviser conduct in this space identified referral-linked recommendation patterns as a recurring red flag. Advisers found to have failed proper disclosure and consent obligations connected to these schemes have faced banning orders, some for periods of five to ten years, along with referrals to AFCA and the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort for affected clients. ACME Advice faced its own scrutiny for failing to monitor referral arrangements and adviser conduct across its authorised representative network.

Standard eight

Standard eight requires financial advisers keep complete and accurate records of advice and services provided to clients. It also requires that:

• Advisers meet legislative requirements relating to the secure storage of client records
• Client records must be complete and accurate for both current and former clients
• Records should include file notes of discussions
• Client records must be easily accessible.

Whether using a paper or online record system, client records should be kept in one place, with appropriate security measures in place. Because of the increasing propensity to use cloud services to store records, mitigating cybersecurity risk is increasingly important.

Case study – Good record-keeping

Kaye is a financial adviser at ACME Financial Advice. Her clients, Mary and Alex, engaged her to manage their investments with the goal of long-term capital growth. During their initial consultations, Kaye completed a thorough risk profiling process and documented that both Mary and Alex identified as growth-oriented investors, comfortable with short-term market fluctuations in exchange for higher long-term returns. Based on this profile and their stated objectives, Kaye recommended a portfolio weighted towards growth assets.

Sometime later, Mary and Alex decided they wanted to access their investment capital earlier than originally planned. At that point, due to broader market volatility, their portfolio was showing a capital loss. Believing Kaye’s advice had caused the loss, Mary and Alex lodged a complaint with AFCA.

Mary and Alex’s position was that the growth investments Kaye recommended were unsuitable and had directly caused a financial loss. Their complaint centred on two claims: that the advice hadn’t matched their risk tolerance, and that Kaye hadn’t adequately explained the possibility of short-term losses when they first agreed to the investment strategy.

Because Kaye maintained detailed and contemporaneous file notes throughout her relationship with Mary and Alex, she was able to provide AFCA with clear evidence of the advice process, including:

• The original risk profiling documentation, showing Mary and Alex’s own responses indicating a growth risk tolerance and a long-term investment timeframe
• File notes from the advice meeting, recording that Kaye had explained the nature of growth assets, including the likelihood of short-term volatility and the possibility of capital loss over shorter periods
• The Statement of Advice, which set out the recommended strategy, the reasons it was appropriate for their stated objectives, and the risks associated with it in plain language
• Ongoing review notes, showing that Kaye had checked in with Mary and Alex at agreed intervals and confirmed their objectives and risk tolerance hadn’t changed
• A record of the conversation in which Mary and Alex first raised the idea of accessing their capital early, including Kaye’s explanation of the impact this timing would have given current market conditions.

Taken together, these records gave AFCA a complete picture of the advice process from beginning to end. They showed that Kaye’s recommendation had been based on Mary and Alex’s own stated objectives and risk tolerance at the time, that she had clearly explained the risks involved, and that the capital loss they experienced was a result of choosing to withdraw funds earlier than planned during a period of market volatility, not a result of unsuitable advice.

AFCA found in Kaye’s favour. The determination centred on the fact that Kaye could clearly demonstrate the basis for her original recommendation and show that it aligned with what Mary and Alex had communicated about their goals and risk tolerance. Her records also showed that the risk of short-term loss had been explained at the outset, which meant Mary and Alex’s decision to withdraw early, rather than the original advice, was the more direct cause of the loss they experienced.

This case illustrates the practical value of standard eight. Kaye’s advice itself may well have been appropriate and well-reasoned, but without documentation to demonstrate that at the time it was given, she would have had little to rely on beyond her own recollection of events that occurred months or years earlier. Her file notes, risk profiling records and Statement of Advice gave AFCA an objective, contemporaneous account of the advice process, which is what standard eight is designed to support.

Standard nine

Standard nine requires that any financial product advice, and all financial products covered by that advice, are offered to each client in good faith and with competence. This covers the following broad requirements:

• Advisers offering financial product advice and recommendations must have the knowledge and competence to provide the advice
• The advice and product recommendations must be in the best interests of each client
• The advice and product recommendations must be delivered in a way the client can easily understand and take at ‘face value’
• The advice and product recommendations consider the broad effects arising from the client acting on the advice and the broader, long-term interests and likely circumstances of the client
• Advisers identify any risks to the client and discuss them openly and honestly.

Advisers are expected to investigate each financial product they recommend. This means having enough knowledge and understanding of the product, including its benefits, risks and costs, to recommend it with confidence.

The legislation also makes clear that advisers are not acting in good faith if they’re aware, or should be aware, of something that would suggest their advice isn’t in the client’s best interests, once the broader and long-term effects on the client’s circumstances are considered.

Standard nine also reflects existing law: financial product advice and recommendations must not be misleading or deceptive.

Case study – Failure to act in good faith

Hannah, 58, held around $340,000 in a large industry super fund. She was contacted by a lead generation firm offering a ‘free superannuation health check’ and referred to Martin, an authorised representative of ACME Financial Advisers. Martin recommended Hannah roll her entire balance into a new platform and invest a significant portion into an unlisted managed investment scheme, presenting it as offering strong, stable returns with modest risk.

Martin had not reviewed the scheme’s product disclosure statement in detail, was unaware of its underlying asset composition and had not checked whether the scheme held the licences and registrations it claimed. He was unaware of the mounting concerns already circulating among other advisers and researchers about the scheme’s liquidity and governance. His Statement of Advice described the scheme in general, favourable terms lifted largely from the promoter’s marketing material and did not address these red flags because he hadn’t gone looking for them.

Hannah, trusting Martin’s professional judgement, proceeded with the switch.

Standard nine requires that financial product advice, and the products recommended, must not be misleading or deceptive. It also requires advisers to act in good faith, meaning they must not ignore matters they were aware of, or ought reasonably to have been aware of, that would suggest the advice wasn’t in the client’s best interests once her broader and long-term circumstances were properly considered.

Martin breached standard nine in two ways:

1. His advice was misleading, not necessarily through deliberate deception, but because it presented a picture of the scheme’s risk and stability that he had no proper basis to support. He hadn’t done the work needed to know whether that picture was accurate.
2. He failed to act in good faith. A reasonably diligent adviser researching this scheme would have come across the warning signs circulating at the time. Martin’s failure to investigate doesn’t excuse the advice; the standard covers what he ought to have known, not just what he actually knew.

When the scheme collapsed, Hannah lost a substantial portion of her retirement savings, with limited near-term prospect of recovery. ASIC’s broader review of adviser conduct connected to schemes of this kind has identified inadequate due diligence and advice built on promoter material rather than independent analysis as a recurring pattern. Advisers found to have failed these obligations have faced banning orders, and their clients have needed to pursue claims through AFCA and the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort.

Standard nine puts the onus on the adviser to investigate, not just to relay. Good faith isn’t measured only by intent. It’s measured by whether the adviser did what a reasonable, informed professional would do before putting a client’s retirement savings on the line. Martin’s failure wasn’t that he set out to mislead Hannah. It was that he recommended something he didn’t properly understand and passed along claims he hadn’t tested.

Professional commitment

Figure two highlights each of the standards that fall under the competency ‘Professional Commitment’.

Standard ten

The focus of standard ten is to ensure that financial advisers have and maintain an appropriate level of relevant knowledge and skill to provide competent financial advice that is in the best interests of their clients.

Section 921B of the Act sets out the education and training standards for a person who is, or is to be, a relevant provider. It, in turn, is made up of four standards:

1. Qualifications standard – the person has completed a bachelor’s or higher degree, or equivalent qualification, approved by the Minister (or holds an approved foreign qualification or an approval under section 921GA(3))
2. Exam standard – the person has passed an exam administered by ASIC in accordance with principles approved by the Minister
3. Professional year standard – the person has undertaken at least one year of work and training that meets the requirements set by the Minister
4. Continuing professional development standard – the person meets the CPD requirements set by the Minister.

Standard ten also requires that:

• Financial advisers provide advice only in areas where they have the necessary skills and competencies to do so in a professional way
• Advisers undertake sufficient continuing professional training to maintain competence at an appropriate level for the professional services, including financial product advice, provided
• Advisers keep up to date with industry, regulatory and product developments relevant to their practice
• Where an adviser specialises in a particular area, they don’t provide advice outside that area unless they have the necessary skills and competencies to do so in a professional way
• Where an adviser doesn’t have the skills and competencies to provide advice sought by a client, that client should be referred to an adviser with relevant skills and knowledge.

Continuing professional development

Financial advisers are required to complete 40 hours of continuing professional development each continuing professional development year[1]. Licensees are responsible for approving at least 70 percent of CPD activities.

The minimum hours for continuing professional development across the mandatory categories are:

• Technical Competence – five hours
• Client Care and Practice – five hours
• Regulatory Compliance and Consumer Protection – five hours
• Professionalism and Ethics – nine hours

The balance up to 40 hours must consist of qualifying continuing professional development.

Case study – A failure of competence

Melanie, an adviser at ACME Advice, had built her practice over more than a decade, largely on traditional risk insurance and retirement income advice. When several long-standing clients began asking about self-managed super funds and direct property investment through their super, including gearing arrangements and the tax implications, Melanie agreed to advise on these strategies rather than referring clients to a specialist.

Melanie had not completed any structured training in SMSF establishment or limited recourse borrowing arrangements. She relied on product provider webinars and general reading to piece together her understanding and had not kept pace with recent changes to contribution caps, in-house asset rules or borrowing restrictions. When advising a client, Robert, on setting up an SMSF to purchase an investment property, Melanie miscalculated the fund’s borrowing capacity and failed to account for a recent change to non-arm’s length income provisions, exposing Robert to a higher tax outcome than she had advised. Robert discovered the error when his accountant reviewed the fund’s tax position at year end.

Standard ten requires advisers to develop, maintain and apply a high level of relevant knowledge and skill. This standard exists because competent advice depends on the adviser genuinely understanding the strategy, product or structure they’re recommending, not just being broadly familiar with it.

Melanie’s conduct breached standard ten because:

• She advised on a complex strategy (SMSF borrowing) outside her core area of expertise, without completing adequate training or accreditation in that area first.
• She did not keep her knowledge current about relevant regulatory changes that directly affected the advice she gave.
• Her CPD activity, largely informal and product-provider led, did not build the depth of technical knowledge the strategy required.

Robert incurred additional tax liability and administrative costs correcting the fund’s structure. He lodged a complaint with AFCA, which found in his favour, and ACME Advice was required to compensate him for the financial loss. ASIC’s review of the complaint also raised concerns about ACME Advice’s oversight of advisers providing advice outside their demonstrated areas of competence, prompting a broader review of the licensee’s authorisation and training framework.

Standard eleven

Standard eleven requires financial advisers to cooperate with ASIC and other monitoring bodies in any investigation. This includes a requirement to respond to requests in a timely and open manner and provide requested documentation or records that may assist the investigation.

This duty applies in addition to the offences outlined in sections 921M and 921P of the Act.

Case study – Attempt to mislead ASIC

Financial adviser Duncan was an authorised representative of several licensees over a fifteen-year period, most recently at ACME Financial Planning. He was permanently banned from providing financial services after an ASIC investigation found that he had persistently engaged in dishonest conduct.

In banning him, ASIC noted their belief that Duncan was likely to contravene a financial services law for reasons including that he had engaged in dishonest conduct while an authorised representative of one licensee and continued to do so at ACME Financial Planning. Additionally, Duncan acted dishonestly in the course of responding to an ASIC statutory notice.

ASIC’s investigation found that Duncan had:

• Dishonestly backdated advice documents to clients
• Incorrectly witnessed binding nomination of beneficiary forms
• Allowed the incorrectly witnessed binding nomination forms to be submitted to insurers on behalf of clients
• Inserted signatures and dates into documents to look like he was compliant with his obligations as an authorised representative
• Falsified company books while carrying out his financial planning and advice business
• Implemented financial advice to clients before they were provided with a statement of advice
• Created or modified documents on client files produced to ASIC and attempted to induce a client to mislead ASIC.

As well as being banned from providing financial services, Duncan was placed on a good behaviour bond for two years. Commenting on the falsification of records, the sentencing judge noted this action to be “A breach of trust of those who you’re engaged to act for.”

Duncan’s actions were unethical on several levels. However, he specifically contravened standard eleven by attempting to mislead ASIC through modified or ‘created’ records, as well as actively inducing a client to mislead the regulator on his behalf.

Standard twelve

For financial advisers to be perceived as a professional group, they need to embody the values that underpin the Code: trustworthiness, competence, honesty, fairness and diligence.

Standard twelve deals with relevant providers’ professional relationships with each other and emphasises that each needs to be supportive and aligned to the profession as a whole. To build trust among consumers, being – and being seen to be – a profession that acts ethically and professionally is critical for the long-term success of the industry.

If you’re supervising a provisional relevant provider through their professional year, this duty has a personal dimension too. It means genuinely supporting them, not just ticking off requirements; they need to get real value from their professional year and should be properly set up for the work ahead.

Case study – Failure to uphold the ethical standards of the profession

Ian ran a small financial services business, initially operating as a licensed authorised representative. From mid-2019, Ian’s licence was revoked, but he continued operating as though nothing had changed. Between 2017 and 2021, he recommended that several clients invest funds from their SMSFs into products he personally controlled, promising fixed returns of 8-12 percent per annum, with some arrangements promising up to 100 percent return upon maturity (stated as three years).

The promised investments were not implemented. Instead, Ian directed a significant portion of investor funds into his own bank account for personal purchases. These included property held in his own name, educational expenses for his three children and expensive cars.

Standard twelve requires advisers, individually and together with their peers, to uphold and promote the ethical standards of the profession and hold each other accountable for protecting the public interest. Ian’s conduct struck directly at the heart of this standard. Continuing to operate as an adviser after losing his licence, and using client funds for personal benefit, wasn’t a technical or process failure. It actively undermined public trust in the profession as a whole.

Ian’s conduct resulted in significant financial harm to his clients, many of whom had entrusted their retirement savings to him in good faith. The matter was investigated and referred for prosecution, resulting in imprisonment. Beyond the personal consequences for Ian, cases like this attract public and regulatory attention that affects perceptions of the entire advice profession. This reinforces the importance of individual accountability and the willingness of the profession to call out and report misconduct when it’s identified.

Standards seven to twelve of the Code move the focus from what advice looks like on paper to how it plays out in practice. None of these standards exist in isolation. A breach of one often signals a breakdown in several others. For better or worse, disclosure, competence and accountability tend to move together. For advisers, the practical takeaway is straightforward: understand what you’re recommending, be upfront about what you and your business stand to gain, keep your knowledge current and be prepared to explain your decisions if asked. These aren’t high bars. They’re the basic expectations of a trusted profession, and the cases where things go wrong are often those cases where one or more of these basics was missed.

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: Profesionalism and Ethics (0.75 hrs)

ASIC Knowledge Requirements: Ethics (0.75 hrs)

please log in to start this quiz

Read CPD: A review of the Code of Ethics (part one)

———–

Notes:
[1]  ASIC, Continuing Professional Development

The post CPD: A review of the Code of Ethics (part two) appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Ian Fryer

Chant West and the Epic Retirement Institute has announced the outcome of the 2027 Epic Retirement Tick assessment. Three new funds join the line-up of funds that received the accreditation in 2026, including:

• AMP Super
• CFS FirstChoice, and
• Vision Super

These funds join Australian Retirement Trust – Super Savings, Aware Super, Brighter Super, Hostplus and UniSuper in the list of accredited funds.

Chant West General Manager, Ian Fryer, said there were some new themes that dominated the assessment this year, reflecting the changing and complex operating environment for super funds.

“There were new criteria introduced this year assessing cyber-safety, as well as a complaints-handling metric and more detailed requirements around access to financial advice and education. We saw a marked improvement in the way super funds were managing these important aspects of their operations,” he said.

“There has been a lot of development work by retail super funds across advice provision (digital & phone), engagement, and retirement income tools and calculators, leading to two of the three new funds being retail funds. Several more funds introduced a retirement bonus this year, but there was less innovation in terms of lifetime products. We’re hoping to see more work in this space by next year,” says Fryer.

Author and founder of the Epic Retirement Institute, Bec Wilson, said “the first year of the Tick put a visible benchmark in front of funds and consumers. Funds that didn’t meet the standard wanted to understand where they fell short and what they needed to do differently. Some have brought forward retirement initiatives, improved existing services or put greater focus on areas that weren’t measuring up. Impressively, some of the funds that received the Tick have continued to build on what they offer.

“That is exactly what we hoped would happen. The Tick was never designed simply to identify the funds meeting the standard. It was designed to help lift the standard across the industry,” she said.

The retirement-readiness framework, developed in a partnership between Chant West and Bec Wilson’s Epic Retirement Institute, offers a consumer-focussed assessment against 20 key criteria, evaluating the range of services and support super funds offer to pre-retirees and retirees. Funds must satisfy at least 14 out of the 20 criteria, with successful funds earning the ‘Epic Retirement Tick – powered by Chant West’.

Ian Fryer said super funds’ response to the introduction of the Tick has been very positive and created genuine dialogue about how the funds can lift their standards for the benefit of members heading towards and already in retirement

“Ultimately, we want as many Australians as possible to have access to the advice, products, tools and service that help them maximise their financial security in retirement. Super funds are working towards the same outcome, and the Tick supports their journey towards achieving that goal,” Fryer said.

The post Chant West and Epic Retirement announce outcome of 2027 Epic Retirement Tick assessment appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Professionals have processes because they are good for business.

True professionals don’t just HAVE processes, they have processes they use everywhere in their work.

All the time.

Professionals are in fact process-driven.

We need to learn from those professions where the outcome of a poor day on the job is literally life or death. That isn’t generally the case for most professional services providers, however a poor day on the job for us can often have grave consequences for our clients.

Pilots are professionals. Pilots don’t wait until they are flying to go through the pre-flight checklist process. The use their process first to ensure that they have minimised the risks.  There is safety in the routine, because the routine is thorough and the routine is repetitively utilised. When they are in the air doing the actual flying, there are further processes. When they want to land, there are more.

Processes make sure nothing gets missed out….because missing stuff out leads to mistakes and mistakes are costly.  In their world, mistakes are deadly. In our world they are just costly financially, reputationally or in time perhaps.

Process has been getting a bad rap in financial services in particular because the word has effectively been hijacked.  It has been used so often in association with “compliance” or “best practice” that the very word “process” is now assumed to mean those other things.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

I had a conversation with an adviser which was essentially about lead generation, and in particular the lead generation which was happening from a good centre of influence.  Referrals are flowing reasonably regularly and there is mutual goodwill and understanding, and both are experienced and competent professionals. But the results are rather hit and miss, with a relatively poor proportion turning into actual clients.

So I asked “what is your process here?”
The response was centered entirely upon the compliance process – what documents were given at what stage and how the respective professionals were documenting their interaction with the prospective client.

Superb.  Everyone gets a compliance tick.

well…everyone who actually engaged got a compliance tick. But that wasn’t what the question was about. The question was about identifying the process for identifying and then engaging potential future clients.

The problem is that there is no qualification or engagement process. There is also no communication process between the two professionals. There are no checklists or flowcharts or agreements in place as to who would do what, or when, or who carries what responsibilities to the client.  Everything is ad hoc….every referral is an exercise in goodwill approached with an attitude of “we’ll see how it goes”.  Not suprisingly it isn’t going so well…every referral (or introduction) has a different experience in working with these 2 professionals jointly.   Every introduction carries uncertainty and mis-matched expectations for everyone involved.

Good processes are simply the result of anticipation based upon previous experience. Anticipating what can happen, and what is likely to happen, and what needs to happen to deliver a consistent service to a high standard. Capturing that thinking and anticipation into a series of steps, or tick boxes, or templates, or whatever works best for you, is what becomes a “process”.

The two key points are that good processes are thought through, and then documented in some manner which can be followed reliably in the future to ensure that critical steps are not missed.

Processes reduce the risk of us missing critical engagement or communications steps simply because we were busy. Processes ensure efficiency because everyone involved knows what their role is, and when it is needed.  Processes produce consistent client experiences and deliver reliable service standards, and that reflects well upon everyone involved.

Processes are good, and ultimately the right processes improve profitability for the firm because they reduce the variability in service delivery which tends to blow out costs or adversely affect conversion and retention rates. Good processes also introduce leverage in the form of capturing systemic knowledge and then passing it on to other less experienced or knowledgeable staff in a comprehensible format which they can follow, resulting in them ideally duplicating the desired service or communications experience at a lower delivery cost. That is intellectual property, which in turn affects business value.

Professionals have processes. Processes that improve profitability. Processes that match behaviour to purpose.

Professionals have processes because they are good for business.

The post Professionals have, and use, processes appeared first on AdviserVoice.

The win marks the third time in four years that Victor Smorgon Partners has received the Best Multi-Strategy Fund award, an industry recognition determined by a panel of judges based on a combination of quantitative and qualitative factors.

The Global Multi-Strategy Fund is Victor Smorgon Partners’ flagship liquid markets strategy, investing alongside Victor Smorgon Group, one of Australia’s most established family offices. The Fund delivered a 25.8% net return in FY26. That strong performance has continued into FY27, with the Fund returning an estimated 7.0% net in August, bringing its FY27 return to 6.4% net and CAGR since inception to 33.0% as at 31 August 2026.

Co-Chief Investment Officers Peter Edwards and Joseph Sitch accepted the award on behalf of the team: “This is a fantastic recognition of the team and the discipline behind our investment approach. To receive this award three times in four years is particularly meaningful and reflects the consistency of the investment approach we have built. We remain focused on finding compelling opportunities globally, managing risk and preserving capital, and delivering strong long-term outcomes for our investors.”

During FY26, the investment team transacted more than A$1.5 billion across the portfolio, reflecting an active year of investment and capital allocation across global markets. Highlights included the ASX listing of portfolio company BMC Minerals. The team, led by Mr Edwards and Mr Sitch, also undertook more than six international research trips, as it seeks investment opportunities across long-term structural themes including decarbonisation, longevity sciences, automation, electrical infrastructure and gold.

Backed by investor demand for the GMF, Victor Smorgon Partners also expanded its managed fund offering in April 2026 when it launched the Global Equities Fund. The long-only global equities strategy  returned 8.95% in August and applies the team’s established investment framework to a concentrated portfolio of global listed companies, providing investors with access to the same thematic research and investment capability through a highly liquid strategy.

The GMF adopts a strong focus on capital preservation, investing across a range of strategies and uncorrelated long-term structural themes with the aim of delivering resilient returns across market cycles. Victor Smorgon Partners is backed by the long-term capital, investment philosophy and heritage of the Victor Smorgon Group.

The post Victor Smorgon Partners Global Multi-Strategy Fund named Best Multi-Strategy Fund at annual hedge fund awards appeared first on AdviserVoice.

The brokerage’s success was led by Sumit Kachhepati, Mortgage Broker and Operations Manager at Zinger Finance, who won two national awards and was recognised as a finalist across three highly competitive categories.

Kachhepati was awarded:

• YBR Aggregation Individual Broker Partner of the Year – Productivity Award
• YBR Aggregation Newcomer of the Year

He was also named a finalist for:

• YBR Aggregation Individual Broker Partner of the Year – Quality Award
• YBR Aggregation Individual Broker Partner of the Year – Productivity Award
• YBR Aggregation Newcomer of the Year

The Productivity Award recognises outstanding individual broker productivity and a consistently high volume of lending settlements across the Yellow Brick Road aggregation network, while the Newcomer of the Year award celebrates exceptional performance, growth, and contribution from a broker in the early stages of their journey.

Zinger Finance also received national recognition, winning: Broker Partner of the Year – Under 6 People

The award recognises the performance and achievements of a high-performing brokerage operating with fewer than six brokers, acknowledging excellence in productivity, quality, and customer outcomes.

In addition, the company was named a finalist in:

• Broker Partner of the Year – Productivity Award
• Broker Partner of the Year – Quality Award
• Broker Partner of the Year – Under 6 People

Sumit Kachhepati said the awards reflected the dedication of the entire Zinger Finance team and its unwavering focus on delivering exceptional outcomes for clients.

“To be recognised nationally among such an outstanding group of mortgage professionals is incredibly humbling. These awards are a testament to the hard work of our team and the trust our clients place in us every day.”

“At Zinger Finance, our focus has always been on helping clients achieve their financial goals through expert advice, personalised solutions and an exceptional customer experience. This recognition reinforces that commitment.”

The post Zinger Finance wins three major honours at Yellow Brick Road National Awards 2026 appeared first on AdviserVoice.