Stephen Sloane

There is a number that often comes up in conversations about advice firm revenue, and it sits around the $500,000 to $600,000 mark per adviser. It is not a hard rule, nor a reflection of the advisers’ skill or a limit on what a good advice business can achieve. But for many principal-led advice firms, it is a very real pressure point.

This level of revenue often represents years of demanding work and a loyal client base. It can also be the point where growth slows, not because the opportunity is not there, but because the structure around the adviser can no longer support it.

Adviser Ratings’ 2025 Australian Financial Advice Landscape reporting found solo adviser practices generate around $607,000 in revenue, while firms with five or more advisers generate around $5.1 million. The difference is not simply that larger firms have more advisers. It is that scaled firms usually operate with clearer role ownership, stronger support and better systems around advice delivery.

Many advice firms do not hit a growth ceiling because of the quality of their advice. They hit it because the adviser becomes the bottleneck.

In many advice businesses, the principal or lead adviser is still involved in too many parts of the process. Client meetings, strategy, compliance checks, file notes, document collection, CRM updates, follow-ups, implementation, provider liaison, team questions and business decisions all compete for the same person’s attention. It feels like a full business because it is a full diary. But full and scalable are not the same thing.

If an adviser is spending 15 to 20 hours a week on administration, coordination and internal follow-up, that can represent close to 1,000 hours a year. That is time not spent deepening client relationships, generating referrals, improving service quality or thinking strategically about the future.

Investment Trends’ 2025 Financial Advice Report, published by AdviserVoice, found 15.9 million Australian adults have unmet financial advice needs. In other words, the opportunity is there. The question is whether advice firms have the capacity to meet it.

This is where Levera’s work with advice firms becomes practical. The issue is rarely that advisers need to care more, work harder or buy another piece of software. In most cases, they need a better support structure around them. That means clear ownership, documented workflows and the right mix of people supporting the adviser before the pressure becomes unmanageable.

The firms that break through this pressure point usually share one common characteristic. They stop treating administration as an unavoidable cost of doing advice and start treating it as a design problem to be solved. They do not simply ask, “How do we get through more work?” They ask, “Who should own each part of the process, and what should the adviser no longer be touching?”

The firms generating stronger revenue per adviser are not necessarily working harder. In many cases, the adviser is doing fewer total tasks, not more. Other people, clearer systems or better workflows own the execution of the work the adviser does not need to handle personally.

The gap between a plateaued practice and a scalable one is rarely about ambition or effort. It is usually about design.

When revenue plateaus, the instinct is often to hire another adviser or bring in new technology. Both can help, but neither fixes the underlying problem if the operating model stays the same.

Technology is a good example. AI and automation may help with capacity, but they are not the starting point. You can layer automation over a broken workflow and all you achieve is faster inefficiency. The firms getting real value from technology are usually the ones that have standardised their processes, clarified role ownership, documented key workflows and built reliable support around the adviser. Structure first. Technology second.

So, what does a scalable operating model look like? In simple terms, it means the adviser is present only where the adviser must be present. That includes advice strategy, client relationships, complex decisions and the moments where the client needs to feel personally supported.

Meeting preparation, document collection, CRM updates, follow-ups, implementation coordination, provider liaison and recurring workflow tasks should not sit with the adviser by default. They should be owned by someone with clear accountability, a defined process and the systems to support them.

At Levera, this is the practical work we help advice firms build. Not just more hands on deck, but the right support structure so advisers can spend more time advising, leading and growing the business. That support may be onshore, offshore or hybrid. The location matters less than the structure. What matters is that the right work is handled by the right people, with the right accountability.

When that model is in place, the adviser can redirect capacity toward higher-value client work, stronger client communication, better referral relationships or a more deliberate move upmarket.

For principals sitting at or near this pressure point, the question worth asking is not, “How do I work harder?” It is, “What in this business genuinely needs me, and what am I still doing that someone else should own?”

The pressure point is real, but it is not fixed. It is a consequence of structure, and structure can be changed.

By Stephen Sloane, Managing Director, Levera Solutions

The post The $500k pressure point and why many advice firms get stuck there appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Buying another business to grow your own can be a great move without doubt.  But, one should really question the motivation, the rationale and understand thoroughly and logically what the benefits from acquisition are.

Many firms facing increased overheads and infrastructure costs in the next few years are considering acquisition or merger strategies as a survival or growth strategy.

Generally there appears to be  5 main reasons that advisers suggest as their reasons for acquisition of another business. They are:

1. Get new clients
2. Increase business turnover
3. Increased cost efficiency
4. Diversify business lines
5. Enhance market position

ALL of these reasons offered CAN be perfectly valid and logical moves for a smart business owner….

BUT….there are many occasions where some simple questions can head off a purchasing (and/or financing!) disaster too as growing through acquisition or merger may well compound problems, rather than lead to a better business.

Some of the issues or questions to consider prior to deciding that this is the right strategy for growth would be:

Get new clients

The one question that I ask immediately when encountering this idea for acquisition is “what’s wrong with the business – or the clients – that you have?”

It may be that there’s nothing actually wrong with your existing client base, though it is usually suggested that there are just not enough of them.  Usually that suggests a problem with the business model of the firm: too focussed upon transactions and insufficiently focussed upon delivering valuable service and ongoing advice.

Even if the business is fundamentally delivering value to existing clients though, generally the desire to simply add more of them rapidly through acquisition suggests that there are some likely problem areas already within the practice, such as:

1. Poor or inadequate marketing (which may be a wide range of things such as branding, positioning, value proposition, etc)
2. Poor engagement (you’re generating leads and business opportunities, but not engaging or converting enough of them)
3. Inadequate sales skills (people in your business are blowing the good work done by your marketing perhaps)
4. Poor business systems (inadequate information and data management; poor advice processes; etc)
5. Providing the wrong thing (amazing but true!  often advisers with a business problem are simply not giving their natural – or target – market what it is they actually want and are willing to pay for)

Often there is a belief amongst advisers that simply having more people to see, or “fresh” clients to wheel out the same story or service offering to, will somehow transform their business.  What is that old line about “doing the same thing but expecting different results….“?

Increase business turnover

No doubt, adding more paying clients will increase turnover, or gross revenue.

But does that actually help?

Two simple questions are a logical starting point:

1. How much extra turnover, or gross revenue, will the new clients bring in?
2. How much of that gets to your bottom line?

The financial focus for acquisition should be on profitability for the business, rather than merely turnover. While this may sound like ” business 101″ it is an often forgotten point. This rationale of simply pursuing increased turnover quite often suggests an existing business that has little internal financial knowledge or systems…in other words, a business where just adding bulk may well compound any existing problems.

Improve cost efficiency

This is potentially an excellent reason for acquisition, particularly in businesses that have relatively high proportions of fixed overheads and relatively low service delivery costs per client.

Once again there are two simple questions to begin with if this is the motivation for acquisition:

1. How does it improve your cost efficiency?
2. So, how much do the anticipated cost savings add to the bottom line?

The first is a really big question that reveals very rapidly the level of understanding that the existing business owner has of their own business fundamentals.  Asking them to think through the areas where costs may be saved, and then identify the details of those theoretical cost savings, is illuminating.   It is also an area which is usually seriously over-estimated.  Rarely do the synergies and efficiencies from acquisition or merger flow through quite as well in practice as they did in theory.

Most financial advisers (despite their personal financial literacy) have poor data and therefore poor internal intelligence on their own client profitability – how the different types of costs are allocated across different types of clients within the firm; what the marginal cost of each additional client will be in servicing or efficiency within their business; how the fixed costs will be affected by additional capacity requirements and so forth.  If that is the case, then it becomes very difficult to assess the efficiencies that can be gained from acquisition with any real accuracy.

Diversify business lines

The argument here is that the new business introduces additional opportunities to the practice through the acquisition of intellectual property, people or systems.

When this is provided as a reason for acquisition one of two things is occurring:  either it is a clear sign that there is a complete lack of strategic clarity and planning ability; or; at the opposite extreme, there is very good strategic thinking at work.  Business owners looking to acquire for this reason are either thinking “I need more stuff to sell”, or, they have a clear idea of where their business wants to be positioned in the future and have decided logically that it is cheaper to purchase the next piece that moves them closer to the goal, rather than to spend the time and money in development themselves.

It is just a matter of working out which of those two conditions are prevailing….and once again a fairly simple question gets to the heart of it:

“how do the new business lines lead you more quickly to achieving your vision?”

If it is the later reason for acquisition, then generally it can work out very well indeed.  If the former, there is a tendency once again for an acquisition to be less successful than anticipated.

Enhance market position

Bigger is not always better, and if the rationale for increasing in size is merely to cater to an egotistical drive or need it is probably a waste of time.  However, bigger can certainly be more valuable.

One of the best examples I have heard of was a financial adviser whose business had grown fairly large organically over many years, and after some sound strategic thinking they decided that “get big quickly” was the right way forward.  The reason?  To sell the business at a premium price and retire.  A series of rapid fire small acquisitions, a re-branding exercise across all new purchases, implementation of some standardized systems…and 6 months after all of that sell the lot at a vastly higher price then they could otherwise have done.

As an exit strategy it can be risky – but very worthwhile.  Whether it is worthwhile really does come down to that clarity of vision once again though.

Buying another business to grow your own can be a great move without doubt.  But, one should really question the motivation, the rationale and understand thoroughly and logically what the benefits from acquisition are.

If you do so, then there is a very good chance that the pieces will fit together well for you.

The post Is acquisition, or merger worth It? appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Alexander Euvrard

Self-licensing specialist My Dealer Services (MDS) expects even stronger growth in 2026 as more financial advisers look to take control of their businesses and come to understand the associative risk of working under large licensees following ASIC suing Interprac Financial Planning over the failure of two large funds.

Interprac is being sued for alleged failures around the now collapsed Shield and First Guardian investment funds where more than 6,500 superannuitants were advised to invest around $677 million.

MDS Managing Director Alex Euvrard said the fund collapses had shaken many advisers and made them realise the potentially costly associative and reputational dangers of being associated with licensees especially as many of the systems, processes and even APL selection is out of their control. This has been especially highlighted through platform providers refusing to take on new clients from advisers under Interprac.

“MDS has already received a number of approaches from advisers wanting more control over their own destiny. Advisers like self-licensing as a way to control their business and make their own choices about how they treat their clients and where they place their money without the scrutiny of a parent licensee and being dictated to by templates. The greatest thing about the advancement of technology and services is that smaller licensees can now access and plug in support services that deliver leading compliance, software, investment and practice management solutions, functions traditionally held with the larger licensees.” he added.

“MDS grew the number of self-licensees it services by 20 per cent to 120 in 2025 and despite up to 15 per cent of the industry forecast to potentially depart at the end of the year because of the introduction of two pathways to remain on the Financial Adviser Register, we are proud that we have already managed to shepherd all of our more than 400 adviser members through the rigours of the new requirements,” Euvrard said.

MDS Head of Strategy Ashley Mahadeea said the rapidly growing business had managed to continue to swell its membership base following a sold-out full day briefing event in Sydney and by hosting a series of roundtable lunches around the country that helped members feel the sense of community within MDS.

“MDS has also introduced 10 new and five enhanced supplier partnerships this year that give MDS members access as well as pricing benefits to best-in-class providers. These included platinum and gold partnerships with Morningstar, HUB24, Lonsec and intelliflo.

“We remain dedicated to empowering members with resources and partnerships that drive better client outcomes. Carefully selecting the right product and service providers to support MDS members is another step toward that commitment.

“In 2026 we will continue to provide hands on compliance solutions for our members, increase our advocacy work to explain the benefits of self-licensing and uplift our internal technology to create more efficiency for the business and our members,” Mahadeea added.

The post My Dealer Services expects surge in self-licensing interest in 2026 appeared first on AdviserVoice.

How does the Code of Ethics govern and interact with the advice provided to clients regarding the establishment and ongoing operation of SMSFs?

The appropriate establishment of SMSFs has recently come under increased scrutiny by ASIC and, at around the same time, AFCA’s Annual Review noted SMSFs elicited the highest number of investor complaints. This article, proudly sponsored by GSFM, examines ethical considerations relevant to advisers recommending SMSFs to their clients.

The recent release of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority’s (AFCA) 2025 Annual Review contained some unwelcome numbers for the advice profession. Investment and advice complaints increased to 18 per cent over the 2024–25 financial year, hitting 4,193. While representing around 4 percent of the total number of complaints received by AFCA, it nevertheless makes for uncomfortable headlines.

The current rise in complaints follows a 26 percent decline in the previous Annual Review, where the total number of investment and advice complaints dropped to 3,559. Further, when the numbers are examined by product, SMSFs top the list of the most complained about, with 1,323 complaints lodged, nearly double the number of complaints received the previous year (figure one).

AFCA’s Annual Review cited the primary driver of the recent increase in overall complaints as a failure to act in the clients’ best interests. This specific issue saw a 124 percent surge in financial year 2025, with 1,266 complaints (figure two). While implied in many of the twelve standards that make up the Financial Planners and Advisers Code of Ethics 2019 (Code of Ethics), acting in the client’s best interests is specifically referenced in standards two and five.

Other issues of note were:

• Failure to follow instructions or agreements
• Inappropriate advice

AFCA noted a range of other factors that contributed to the overall rise in investment and advice complaints, which included concerns about advice business models such as:

• Cold-calling and pressured sales tactics
• Conflicted advice
• Undiversified and common product recommendations being made to the majority of a firm’s clients.

ASIC recently published Report 824: Review of SMSF establishment advice (released November 2025)^[1], which raised serious concerns about the quality of advice financial advisers are providing to retail clients regarding the establishment of Self-Managed Superannuation Funds (SMSFs).

The report’s key findings and concerns were as follows:

• Failure rate – ASIC reviewed a risk-based sample of 100 financial advice files relating to SMSF establishment. It found that 62 percent of the files failed to demonstrate compliance with the Best Interests Duty and related obligations. This in itself would have breached several standards in the Code of Ethics.
• Client detriment – more alarmingly, more than one-quarter of the files raised significant concerns about client detriment, meaning the recommendation to set up an SMSF was unsuitable and potentially detrimental to the client’s retirement outcomes.
• Mis-selling ‘control’ – ASIC found advisers often justified the SMSF recommendation solely on the client’s desire for ‘control’” without adequately exploring what that notion meant for the client’s actual needs, skills and time commitment. ASIC noted that other superannuation vehicles may offer the desired level of control without the client taking on the additional responsibilities and risks of an SMSF.
• Acting as ‘order-takers’ – advisers failed to provide rigorous, well-considered advice and instead acted as ‘order-takers’, recommending an SMSF and its proposed investments (such as off-the-plan properties via limited recourse borrowing arrangements) without properly investigating whether the SMSF or the associated high-risk investments were suitable for the client.
• Conflicts of interest – in many files of concern, ASIC was worried that the financial adviser failed to prioritise the client’s interests above their own or those of their advice licensee or an associate, particularly where the advice involved establishing an SMSF to facilitate the purchase of specific assets.
• Ineffective pre-vetting – even when advice licensees had mandatory pre-vetting systems in place to review SMSF establishment advice before it reached the client, these systems were frequently ineffective. Out of 47 pre-vetted files reviewed, 33 still contained advice that failed to comply with the best interests duty.

ASIC emphasised that poor SMSF advice puts retirement savings at risk for two key reasons:

• Loss of protection – clients who move their super from an APRA-regulated fund to an SMSF lose important consumer protections, including the benefits of prudential regulation and the ability to complain about the fund’s trustees to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA).
• Suitability and complexity – SMSFs are not suitable for everyone, regardless of the balance, and require trustees to have the time, skills, and interest to meet complex compliance obligations.

ASIC stressed that this report serves as a serious warning to both financial advisers and advice licensees to improve their practices when advising on SMSF establishment. The regulator provided specific action points for the industry to ensure that SMSFs are only recommended when genuinely suitable and in the client’s best interests.

ASIC has a specific role in regulating SMSFs. The regulator considers contraventions of the Corporations Act, the SIS Act and the ASIC Act, and is responsible for regulating the following harms:

• Dishonest conduct and fraud (section 1041G of the Corporations Act)
• Misleading and deceptive conduct (sections 769C, 1041E, 1041F and 1041H of the Corporations Act; sections 12DA–12DC, 12DF–12DG and 12BB of the ASIC Act)
• Unlicensed advice (section 911A of the Corporations Act)
• Contraventions of the relevant conduct and disclosure obligations, including the best interests duty and related obligations (sections 961B, 961G–961H and 961J of the Corporations Act)
• Contraventions of the Code of Ethics (section 921E of the Corporations Act), and
• Contraventions relating to SMSF auditors (sections 128D–128H and 130F of the SIS Act).

SMSFS and ethics

An SMSF is a private retirement vehicle established solely to provide benefits to its members. Capable of having between one and six members, SMSFs are highly regulated and subject to numerous, frequently changing rules and compliance obligations. ASIC Information Sheet 274 (INFO 274)^[2] provides guidance to Australian financial services (AFS) licensees and their representatives who provide personal advice to retail clients about SMSFs. INFO 274 provides tips to help advisers comply with their legal obligations when giving advice about SMSFs, including:

• Understanding obligations when providing SMSF advice
• Using professional judgement to assess whether an SMSF is appropriate for the client
• Consideration of the risks associated with an SMSF
• Consideration of the costs associated with running an SMSF
• Factors to consider when advising a client to withdraw their superannuation from a fund regulated by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) to set up an SMSF.

This article will review the recommendations for each subject matter area outlined in INFO 274, specifically examining them through the lens of the Code of Ethics and its 12 standards (figure three).

Understand obligations when giving SMSF advice

Any adviser providing SMSF advice to their clients must comply with numerous laws, including:

• The conduct and disclosure obligations in Parts 7.7 and 7.7A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Corporations Act)
• The Financial Planners and Advisers Code of Ethics
• The Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (SIS Act).

Importantly, when providing personal advice to clients – including advice about establishing and managing an SMSF – advice providers must meet the best interests duty and related obligations:

• Act in the best interests of the client (section 961B)
• Provide appropriate personal advice (section 961G)
• Warn the client if advice is based on incomplete or inaccurate information (section 961H)
• Prioritise the interests of the client (section 961J).

The first standard of the Code requires advisers to comply with all relevant laws including the Code. While acting in accordance with all laws applies to all areas of financial advice, there are additional regulations specific to SMSFs that advisers must comply with. ASIC holds AFS licensees directly accountable for their advice processes, especially concerning SMSFs.

The regulator expects licensees to tailor their compliance systems and controls to meet both:

• The general obligations under section 912A of the Corporations Act.
• The specific advice obligations set out in section 961K or 961L.

Crucially, ASIC also mandates that licensee processes must be robust enough to proactively detect and address two high-risk activities:

• The potential for dishonest conduct, fraud, or misleading and deceptive client communications. Exercise professional judgement to assess SMSF suitability
• The risk of unlicensed advice, ensuring authorised representatives never act outside the scope of the AFS licence conditions or authorisations.

Before recommending an SMSF, you must diligently assess the client’s existing superannuation arrangements and investigate whether those, or other retail or industry funds, might better meet their long-term retirement funding goals.

It is essential to consider the client’s full circumstances and ensure they fully grasp the implications of the SMSF advice. Establishing an SMSF can have serious consequences regarding their retirement savings, insurance coverage and associated responsibilities.

When providing SMSF advice, you should consider a range of factors, including the following:

What types of professional advice are appropriate?

Clients considering the suitability of an SMSF may benefit from advice from various professionals. When referring clients to SMSF specialists, it is important to comply with standard three and avoid any conflicts of interest that could arise due to the referral.

When referring to a third party SMSF professional, compliance with standard seven requires that you do not derive any benefits from that referral.

Providing personal advice to clients about SMSFs requires specialist knowledge. Before providing SMSF advice it’s important that you have and maintain SMSF knowledge and expertise, as required by standards nine and ten.

Is an SMSF suitable for your client?

Before your client transfers their retirement savings from an APRA-regulated superannuation fund to an SMSF, you must ascertain that the SMSF is an appropriate retirement savings vehicle for that client, based on their objectives, circumstances and needs.

By doing this, you will ensure that you meet the requirements of standards two, five and six:

• to ensure the SMSF is in your client’s best interests
• that you have reasonable grounds to be satisfied your client understands your advice, the benefits and risks of using an SMSF, as well as the ongoing costs involved
• in making the recommendation to establish an SMSF, you have considered the client’s longer-term interests and likely circumstances.

Suitability is paramount because, without it, an adviser fails to act in the client’s best interests. This is not only a breach of the Corporations Act (and thus standard one of the Code) but also explicitly breaches standards two and five and underlies many other ethical duties within the Code.

ASIC provides the following as factors to consider when determining the suitability of an SMSF for your client:

• Your client must understand and accept that although they may outsource their SMSF responsibilities to professional advisers (such as accountants or audit specialists), as the SMSF trustee your client is responsible for ensuring compliance with superannuation, corporations and tax laws
• Your client must have the time, skills, general interest, and experience to meet their trustee responsibilities
• The cost-effectiveness of an SMSF considering your client’s existing arrangements, relevant circumstances and other SMSF members
• Any relevant vulnerabilities your client may be experiencing, such as cognitive impairment, accessibility constraints or coercion/elder abuse
• Other arrangements that may provide some of the benefits of an SMSF, such as ‘a member directed investment facility’ within an APRA-regulated superannuation fund.

Finally, you must have reasonable grounds to be satisfied that your client fully understands the advice, including the complete spectrum of benefits, costs, and risks associated with establishing and running an SMSF. A key area of concern for ASIC is when an SMSF is recommended without proper consideration of whether the client possesses (or can realistically develop) the time, skills, and knowledge necessary to effectively operate as an SMSF trustee.

APRA-regulated superannuation funds versus SMSFs

Compliance with the best interests duty and related standards require you to ensure the client understands and accepts the unique risks and responsibilities of an SMSF compared to an APRA-regulated fund. This detailed disclosure is specifically necessary to meet standard four (informed consent). If the client does not fully grasp the fundamental differences and the burden of the SMSF trustee role, the legal requirement for informed consent has arguably not been met.

When comparing an SMSF and an APRA-regulated fund, there are numerous differences that clients need to be aware of and understand. This needs to occur prior to the establishment of an SMSF.

Prior to SMSF establishment, you must ensure the client fully understands their trustee obligations and the serious penalties that apply for non-compliance. For instance, failure to follow SMSF regulations can result in breaching numerous ATO requirements. Critically, failing to properly inform your client about these onerous long-term duties could result in a breach of standard six, which requires you to consider and act in the client’s broader, long-term interests.

Some of the differences between SMSFs and APRA-regulated funds that you should discuss with clients include:

Protections in the event of theft or fraud

• Access to statutory compensation will differ; an SMSF does not have the same protections as an APRA-regulated fund and is not eligible for government compensation.
• While the client may have legal options in the event of theft or fraud, there is no certainty that compensation will be awarded. However, members of APRA-regulated funds are generally eligible for compensation in the event of theft or fraud.

Trustee complaints and resolution

• SMSF trustees (and members) may be required to resolve their own complaints.
• Clients should be aware of situations where disputes may arise, including:
• in the event of trustee relationship breakdown
• where member death benefits must be paid
• if a trustee/s considers that they have received unsuitable professional advice.
• Access to AFCA is only available to SMSF investors in certain circumstances, such as if they received advice from a licensed financial adviser and their complaint relates to the financial advice about the suitability of an SMSF, the SMSF investments or insurance products.

Client’s legal responsibilities as trustee

• You must be confident your client understands and accepts that as trustee, they are personally responsible for running their SMSF according to its trust deed and must ensure the fund complies with superannuation, corporations and tax laws.
• Your client must understand that:
  • while trustees can use professionals or rely on other trustees to help run their SMSF, responsibility for SMSF compliance remains with the trustees
  • all trustees share responsibility equally
  • SMSFs are regulated by the ATO
  • professionals who provide tax agent services must be on the Tax Practitioners Board register
  • SMSF auditors must be registered with ASIC as an ‘approved SMSF auditor’ on the SMSF auditor register before they can sign off on SMSF audit reports
  • all financial advisers who provide personal advice on SMSFs must be licensed by an AFS licence and registered with ASIC.
• Clients need to understand that a failure to comply with their obligations under superannuation and taxation laws can have significant consequences, such as the loss of tax concessions. All trustees are equally required to comply with trustee responsibilities and obligations and are liable for the actions of other trustees.

Your clients also need to be aware of the penalties they can face for non-compliance with superannuation, corporations or tax laws, including:

1. Tax consequences, such as their SMSF losing its concessional tax treatment.
2. Being disqualified from their role as trustee – this means they can no longer be members of the SMSF, and they are unable to start a new one.
3. Civil or criminal penalties, depending on the seriousness of the breach.

The ATO can disqualify an SMSF trustee, or director of a corporate trustee, if:

• The trustee has contravened the rules.
• The ATO considers the trustee not to be a ‘fit and proper’ person for the role, having regard to the trustee’s personal character and circumstances.

SMSF costs

It is crucial that your client understands the costs of an SMSF throughout its lifecycle. These costs will vary based on your client’s relevant circumstances; examples are set out in figure three.

The second part of standard five requires you to be satisfied that your client understands the costs, risks and benefits associated with your advice. With an SMSF, there can be a cost-benefit trade-off between the time taken to appropriately administer the SMSF versus the expected returns and benefits. To comply with this standard, you need to have reasonable grounds to be satisfied with respect to this cost-benefit trade off.

The starting balance of an SMSF is one of several factors you should consider when recommending an SMSF, as this is relevant to its cost-effectiveness (and compliance with standard five). Statistical data^[3] shows that fund expenses are proportionally higher, and net returns lower, for lower balance funds.

However, it’s important to note that there may be circumstances when an SMSF with a higher starting balance is not in your client’s best interests. This may be because it does not meet your client’s objectives, financial situation or needs, or requires time and/or knowledge that the client does not have. Neither situation would be in the client’s best interest and a potential breach of standards two and five.

Suitable trustee structure

A core component of appropriate SMSF advice is recommending the most suitable trustee structure, whether that be corporate or individual. This decision is crucial due to its lasting impact on the client’s tax profile and succession planning. It is important to remember that changing structures after the fund is operational is often costly and complex.

The regulator is particularly concerned about poor practice here, including the failure to document consideration of the appropriate structure or simply directing a client to one option. Providing your client with a clear comparison of the risks and benefits of both structures meets the demands of several ethical standards, including best interests (standards two and five), long-term interests (standard six) and competence (standard nine). Discussion points to consider during the client conversation about a suitable trustee structure may include:

• Cost, including the potential cost of changing the trustee structure in the future
• Compliance with the SMSF trust deed, superannuation, corporations and taxation laws, the company’s constitution and the Corporations Act
• Administration and reporting requirements
• Trustee succession planning
• SMSF asset ownership considerations.

Trustee succession planning and exit strategy should be considered at establishment; this can help to reduce the impact of ‘unexpected’ events. They also need to understand the steps required to wind up an SMSF. This is relevant to standard six of the Code.

It can be helpful for clients to understand the reasons why they may need to wind up their SMSF, which can include:

• The SMSF proves not to be cost-effective
• Trustee responsibilities become too onerous or too costly
• A trustee dies or becomes incapacitated
• Disputes between trustees.

The investment strategy

As trustees, SMSF members are responsible for developing, maintaining, and reviewing a written investment strategy to ensure the fund is positioned to meet members’ retirement needs. Crucially, trustees remain responsible for all investment decisions, even when those decisions are based on advice from professionals.

It is important to remember that with a maximum of six members, an SMSF typically lacks the scale of large public funds. This size limitation can restrict investment opportunities, such as direct infrastructure or private equity, which usually require significant capital.

You must ensure your client understands the following key obligations:

• An investment strategy must be in place before any investments are made, and it must be regularly reviewed.
• All changes to the strategy must be documented in writing.
• Trustees should actively consider whether to hold appropriate insurance cover.

While you can assist the client in developing investment objectives and a suitable strategy, they must ultimately understand that as trustee, they are legally responsible for managing investments in the best financial interests of all SMSF members and in accordance with the law. When documenting the SMSF’s investment strategy, the following points should be considered and discussed with your client:

• The fund’s investment objectives
• Investment strategy and whether it is consistent with the trust deed
• Members’ risk tolerance
• The types of investments the fund can make, including the likely risk/return profile of these investments
• Implementation of investment decisions
• Diversification
• Death benefit nominations
• Liquidity requirements to meet fund expenses, including retirement benefits.

ASIC’s guidance notes the importance of adequately consider and inform your clients about:

• The benefits associated with diversification
• The restrictions that apply to SMSF investments
• Whether to hold insurance cover
• Prohibited transactions, including lending the fund’s money or providing financial assistance to a member of the fund or their relatives.

Importantly, you ought to ensure your clients understand the costs associated with implementing your SMSF advice recommendations, including ongoing fees. As well as best practice, standard five explicitly requires you to be satisfied your client understands the costs associated with your advice.

In any audit, ASIC is highly likely to scrutinise the advice given regarding the SMSF’s investment strategy to ensure it was appropriate for the client’s stated risk appetite and investment goals. Failure to provide appropriate advice on this strategy constitutes a breach of multiple ethical standards, including:

• Best interests (standards two and five)
• Long-term interests (standard six)
• Competence and good faith (standard nine)

Death benefit nomination

It is essential to ensure your client has a valid death benefit nomination in place and fully understands the consequences of failing to maintain one. This nomination must be reviewed regularly, especially whenever the client’s personal circumstances change, to ensure it remains effective.

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 or AFCA and for each, potential breaches of the Code of Ethics are identified.

Case study one: Appropriate advice to establish an SMSF

A middle-aged couple, Bill and Jess, were new clients of ACME Advice and adviser Susan. The couple had two dependent children. When they first met with Susan, they mentioned the possibility of buying a property through an SMSF, including borrowing. Bill and Jess owned their home, some shares and an investment property, and had some existing debt.

In conversation with the clients, Susan determined the couple had the skills to manage an SMSF, a general interest to do so and the ability to take on the responsibilities of operating an SMSF.

Further, Susan believed her clients were suited to establishing an SMSF for the purpose of investing in direct property using an LRBA. She recorded sufficient detail on the client file to indicate that although borrowing and investing into a property through an SMSF would be on the upper end of their risk tolerance, the likely long-term retirement result was superior and in accordance with their desire to build financial independence by taking on extra risk.

Susan also considered the SMSF’s expected cash flow position following the proposed LRBA and property purchase and obtained information from Bill and Jess about their health before providing the SMSF advice and recommending an increase to their life insurances. Susan also recommended that a sizable component of the SMSF be retained in liquid, diversified assets to help mitigate the illiquidity and concentration risk of the leveraged direct property.

Upon audit, ASIC determined that the client file demonstrated that the SMSF with LRBA strategy was expected to help the client meet their retirement objectives and that the client was expected to benefit from the SMSF establishment advice.

Consequently, Susan’s advice to Bill and Jess did not breach the Code of Ethics. In particular, the relevant standards she upheld were:

Case study two: Inappropriate SMSF establishment

Monique and Peter complained to AFCA in their personal capacities and on behalf of the corporate trustee of a self-managed superannuation fund. The complainants were referred to Toby, an authorised representative of ACME SMSFs in 2020. Monique and Peter complained that the advice they received to establish an SMSF and use it as a vehicle to make a geared investment in a residential property was not in their best interests and was inappropriate. The complainants want to be compensated for $224,050 for the losses related to the SMSF to resolve this case.

However, ACME SMSFs denies responsibility for the claimed losses as it believes that its representative Toby did not make a specific property recommendation.  It also claims:

• The advice was in the complainant’s best interests and was appropriate
• Monique and Peter would have proceeded with the geared property investment strategy in any event

AFCA determined that ACME SMSFs did not demonstrate that the advice to establish an SMSF and a property investment strategy was in the best interests of the complainants, as objectives and financial goals were inadequately investigated. Because the SMSF establishment was the core element of Toby’s advice, AFCA determined the advice fees should be refunded.

However, Monique and Peter were unable to establish that they would not have proceeded with the property investment irrespective of the establishment of the SMSF. Toby’s notes recorded that the couple articulated their wish to make this investment, hence his recommendation to establish the SMSF.

Accordingly, AFCA’s recommendation took the view that the complainants should be compensated $24,500, representing the advice fees paid by the SMSF between the 2020 SOA and the end of the advice relationship in 2024. However, the other aspects of the 2020 SOA were deemed to be appropriate and therefore no other refund or compensation was required.

From the details provided in the case study, Toby and ACME SMSFs potentially breached the following standards in the Code of Ethics.

Case study three: Failure to act in clients’ best interests

Alex was an adviser with ACME Financial Advice and referred several of his clients to an SMSF administrator to facilitate the establishment of SMSFs. He did this without providing any advice as to the roles of SMSF trustees and without ascertaining the clients’ capability to act as trustees. Alex then advised those clients to rollover their existing APRA-regulated super funds into their recently established SMSFs.

An ASIC investigation found that Alex failed to prioritise his clients’ interests and consistently failed to act in their best interests because:

• Alex provided ‘cookie cutter’ advice rather than the required personal advice. Consequently, the advice he provided was not appropriate to his clients’ circumstances, financial objectives or needs, nor was it appropriate to the subject matter of the advice sought by his clients
• Alex failed to make reasonable inquiries to obtain complete and accurate information about his clients’ relevant circumstances
• Alex focused his advice on rolling over superannuation savings from APRA-regulated super funds to SMSFs without adequately considering alternative options, such as whether his clients would be better off retaining their existing APRA-regulated super funds
• Alex failed to adequately consider and provide information about the risks, costs and obligations of taking on the role of SMSF trustee
• Alex had been informed by his licensee that he did not have the required expertise to advise on SMSFs generally but still proceeded to provide SMSF advice to his clients.

Consequently, ASIC banned Alex from providing financial services for eight years. From the details provided in the case study, Alex potentially breached the following standards in the Code of Ethics.

Just over 800,000 people intend to retire in the next 5 years, and 294,000 in the next 2 years^[4]. As such, the necessity of robust and tailored retirement planning has reached a critical peak.

SMSFs can be a powerful vehicle for clients seeking greater control and investment flexibility. However, this control comes with a heavy regulatory cost. The associated time, financial expense, complex compliance obligations and significant personal liability imposed on trustees often outweigh the perceived benefits for many. Consequently, SMSFs are frequently an unsuitable option for individuals lacking the necessary financial expertise or the capacity to dedicate substantial time to ongoing administration and compliance.

For financial advisers, recommending an SMSF establishment demands deep due diligence. It requires a thorough understanding of the client’s unique circumstances, financial situation, long-term goals and risk tolerance. It is essential to meticulously assess whether the perceived flexibility and control truly align with the client’s best interests throughout their entire retirement horizon.

The decision to establish an SMSF is not a one-size-fits-all solution and should never be taken lightly. The role of professional advice is paramount. You must ensure clients are fully informed about the inherent responsibilities, risks and potential rewards. Ultimately, the adviser’s focus must remain on delivering a tailored retirement strategy that safeguards the client’s long-term financial wellbeing.

Take the FAAA accredited quiz to earn 1.0 CPD hour:

CPD Quiz

The following CPD quiz is accredited by the FAAA at 1.0 hour.

Legislated CPD Area: Professionalism & Ethics (1.0 hrs)

ASIC Knowledge Requirements: SMSF (1.0 hrs)

please log in to start this quiz

———

Notes:
[1] https://www.asic.gov.au/regulatory-resources/find-a-document/reports/rep-824-review-of-smsf-establishment-advice/
[2] https://asic.gov.au/regulatory-resources/financial-services/giving-financial-product-advice/tips-for-giving-self-managed-superannuation-fund-advice/]
[3] https://www.ato.gov.au/About-ATO/Research-and-statistics/In-detail/Super-statistics
[4] ABS, Retirement and Retirement Intentions, Australia, October 2025

The post CPD: SMSFs, ethics and financial advice appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Darren Tasker

The unseen forces of AI and cloud computing are never out of the news, yet behind the headlines lies a story of growth and innovation as tangible as bricks and mortar.

The heavy computing power required by AI workloads, and the growing global demand for AI technologies, has seen a building boom take place around the world as developers scramble to build the facilities required to meet these needs. According to market research, up to $7 trillion will be spent on data centers by 2030 – a huge sum driven largely by technology companies in the US and China, while Europe lags a few paces behind. The tech industry’s big three, Amazon, Microsoft and Google Cloud, accounted for almost two-thirds of global cloud revenue in Q2 2025. Combined with Chinese companies such as Alibaba and Tencent, their capital expenditure budgets for 2025 reach hundreds of billions of US dollars, much of it geared towards the industrial scale infrastructure and dependable energy sources that high-performance AI and cloud computing now demands.

The latest Allianz Commercial report, The Data Center Construction Boom, explores the extent of this global buildout and also questions whether the building bonanza can last. Despite the ongoing expansion, several factors could limit future growth, including the surging costs of construction. These have escalated dramatically from $200-$300 million, to projects exceeding $20 billion. According to Allianz Commercial construction experts, average-sized facilities now cost between $500 million and $2 billion. Along with higher construction prices, the complex nature of data center construction and operation requires specialised insurance coverage for risks such as power supply concerns, faulty workmanship, fire or natural catastrophes.

“Construction projects as complex and extensive as data centres require significant time and resources. Typically, they require project-specific policies given their size and their unique risk profile that demands specialised insurance,” says Darren Tasker, Head of Construction, Americas, at Allianz Commercial.

Data centres are fuelling the construction industry

A global buildout is underway to construct the infrastructure needed to support the digital economy. The US will be the largest market for data centers, covering about two thirds of the total global data center power demand with 81 gigawatts (GW) by 2028, while China’s data center market is building out equally aggressively. Greater Beijing alone now accounts for roughly 10% of global hyperscale capacity. Europe is trailing behind the two superpowers but is experiencing a 43% annual increase in pipeline activity, with London and Dublin as the largest markets (each with over 1GW capacity), followed by Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Paris, and Milan.

“The bigger data centres have a huge footprint. The scale of a $20bn+ facility can involve tens of thousands of workers on site at peak times, with significant equipment and building supplies moving in and out,” says Chris Fancher, US Head of Construction Property at Allianz Commercial. “Timings can be tight. This requires expert coordination, as any missteps or faulty workmanship can lead to potential losses or costly delays.”

Data centres combine great processing power with unique risk profile

Building a data centre is a complex, multi-disciplinary undertaking, which presents a multitude of risks. One of the main issues is the soaring power demand that threatens to outpace grid capacity and infrastructure. The electricity demand from data centers worldwide is set to more than double by 2030, to around 945Twh. This is slightly more than the consumption of the whole of Japan today, with its population of 124 million. To avoid power issues, which are the main source of impactful outages with 45%, data center operators are increasingly seeking to reduce their reliance on the grid by generating their own power on site, including renewables, gas, and even potentially small nuclear reactors.

Fire, heat and water are also significant risks for data centres, potentially leading to severe property damage or business interruption losses. Lithium-ion batteries are increasingly being used in server racks in data halls. The fire risk associated with these batteries is well documented, particularly in relation to electric vehicles and charging infrastructure. Large data centres can consume up to 19 million litres of water a day, equivalent to the water use of a town with a population of up to 50,000. Increasing cooling requirements will drive up water and electricity demand, while rising global temperatures pose a growing risk to the resilience of over half the world’s top data centre hubs. This has altered the risk profile of data centres and contributed to the increase in construction and insurance costs.

Risk management crucial with strong growth expected in Asia

The Asia Pacific region accounts for approximately 30% of global data center capacity and is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 21% from 2024 to 2028, a faster pace compared to more developed markets. The region consists of multiple markets, each with distinct drivers and market conditions. China, Japan, and India account for 60% of the total installed capacity in the region, while markets like India, Malaysia, and Indonesia are expected to lead the next wave of growth.

Christian Sandric, Regional Managing Director of Allianz Commercial Asia, says, “As the demand for data centers in the region surges, it is crucial that parties fully understand the risks involved during construction and operation. Beyond the main risks such as power supply, rising construction costs and supply constraints, fire, and cooling requirements, parties also need to consider aspects such as cyberattacks, and impact on the surrounding environment, ecosystem, and infrastructure. For example, cooling systems may discharge heated water back into local water bodies, and this can raise temperatures and affect aquatic ecosystems.

“These complex and extensive risks call for specialist insurance and expert risk-management guidance, and clients need to work with an experienced team of underwriters who knows the business and can support the project from beginning to end, including multi-year coverage and policy extensions as needed.”

The post AI and cloud computing drive global construction boom for data centres appeared first on AdviserVoice.

If you decide to chase the bigger payday then invest in turning the practice into something that buyers will pay a premium for.

The irony of adviser succession discussions is how few of the advisers considering the topic seem to consider how to get a better return on what is often their biggest investment – their practice.  Sellers simply do not appear to think too deeply about what buyers will value and pay premium pricing for more often than not.

If you were buying a financial advisory practice what would you look for in order to determine whether it was a good “buy”?

Any adviser thinking about succession – either through an internal appointment or by selling to an external party – should focus on building the practice systems, positioning and infrastructure that potential buyers want.  To be blunt; if you are planning to move on and exit anyway what does it matter what systems you personally prefer?

Here is a list of factors that make a practice particularly attractive to a potential purchaser:

•  service propositions clear & process driven
•  differentiation in service offerings & clear client segmentation strategy
•  drivers & client profitability understood and measured
•  clear pricing strategies that are sustainable
•  fully compliant processes
•  range and depth of business relationships
•  quality and sustainability (persistency) of in-force business
•  effective and sustainable marketing systems
•  management systems and reporting (especially financial)
•  staff – both support and front-line advisory – experience, quality, qualified, stability.
•  strong positive business cashflow after any financing costs, and
•  practice management systems and processes.

Increasingly such purchasers will also be ideally wanting something better than mere “compliance” – they want best practice in as many areas as possible.  That extends well beyond just the “advice” processes.  Best practice in management reporting, staff training and qualifications, service and communications process, and so on is on their ideal list.

There is value in adopting a best practice approach to building your practice – especially the value that can be obtained when it’s time to sell!

Alternatively of course the option remains to ignore all of this and just try and sell the assets “as is, where is” in the form of some simple multiplier of contracted renewals or trail.  That would save a lot of effort and substantial investment after all.  But do the maths on those choices….selling assets on a multiple of 2.5-3.5 times is worth $X….but investing 1-2 years and $Y in systems, etc can easily turn that into 4.5 x +, or even better 6-7 x EBIT.

How do the numbers stack up for you from an investment perspective?

If you decide to chase the bigger payday then invest in turning the practice into something that buyers will pay a premium for.  To do that you really do need to look at the practice from the perspective of what they want, not what you want.

The post Adviser succession: What do buyers of financial practices look for? appeared first on AdviserVoice.

For our allocation of budgets and resources it makes sense to commit resources to two areas rather than a catch-all “marketing” budget.

When considering advisory practice marketing the primary focus from most advisers is “How much should I spend to get a new client onboard?” It is a single marketing focus; just one marketing target. You need one more.

While the answer will vary for everyone of course as to how much one new client is worth, the typical answer I hear is “maybe a couple of hundred dollars”.  It follows that if you want another couple of hundred clients in coming years and that you are prepared to spend $40,000 to do it (being “a couple of hundred dollars” each), then you need a marketing plan.

Generally professionals are willing to spend that $40,000 because they recognise the potential lifetime value of a client. The ROI makes sense: spend a couple of hundred dollars perhaps and turn that into several thousand dollars of revenue from each of those clients over coming years. It is a good investment….IF you actually get the thousands of dollars in years to come.  So we have to have a marketing strategy for realising, or unlocking, this potential lifetime value as well.

It is at this point that the usual error occurs.

Good practices are usually willing to allocate around 3-5% of anticipated revenue to “marketing” each year. A common problem with this approach though is that this budget usually includes the allocation to existing client “marketing” as well as new client acquisition. It follows that it is fairly common for existing clients to actually have less time and attention and resources invested in them as the budget allocation gets weighted towards acquisition rather than retention. In plain language – all the marketing dollars and efforts get focussed on attracting new folk at the expense of marketing to the existing clients.

Major mistake

The full potential lifetime value of clients will only be realised if the professional relationship exceeds their expectations and they are convinced that they are receiving extremely good value.

We need a marketing strategy for this as well.

The potential lifetime value of these clients is the sum of:

1.  anticipated revenue from ongoing advice, plus,
2.  new advice and planning requirements that will arise with changing circumstances, plus,
3.  the acquisition costs saved from referrals generated by these clients, multiplied by,
4.  the positive brand promotion and goodwill generated with recommendations and positive word-of-mouth, multiplied by,
5.  the duration (number of years) of the relationship – which is directly linked to client satisfaction level.

Try putting some numbers around that formula… it becomes mind-blowing. Even with some conservative assumptions regarding future opportunities, brand promotion value, and potential referral generation that might be achieved it becomes obvious fairly quickly that in terms of getting a decent return on marketing spending a practice will often do far better from investing more in creating loyal existing clients who give more business and wallet share than in competing in the open market to attract the attention and interest of potential clients. Factor in the potential change in how long a very satisfied client may stay and pay, as opposed to an ambivalent client, and the numbers increase exponentially.

To realise this potential we need a clear strategy for marketing to existing clients. We need to “service them” too – and that comes at a cost to the practice. But marketing to them is over an above the servicing activity.

It is also important to continue directing efforts to the acquisition of new clients of course, and I am certainly not suggesting that a practice should stop trying to do that. Every year a practice will lose some clients through natural attrition – and perhaps that has nothing to do with our service offering or client experience. People get divorced, move overseas, start and shut down businesses… there are a multitude of reasons why good clients leave that actually have nothing to do with how well we do our work, and those clients need replacing if a practice is to grow. Some of those new clients can be generated via our existing and extremely satisfied clients if we get the service and marketing to them right, and some will come from new sources. But we do need to have a plan for how we attract the replacements and new clients required to help drive genuine growth.

The point is that for our allocation of budgets and resources it makes sense to have two areas where we commit resources rather than a catch-all “marketing” budget. We should have a budget and clear strategy for creating new client opportunities, and it is a smart play to link that strategy to the existing client relationships and marketing plan. One feeds the other if done well; the two are linked, though quite separate in focus and execution because they are aimed at quite different segments, and they have quite different objectives potentially.

I would argue that it makes more sense commercially and morally to allocate a higher proportion to “client marketing”. This is different to “servicing”….as we need to “market ourselves” to existing clients if we are to create maximum lifetime value for the practice.  The difference between the two might be summarised as:

1. Service is simply about meeting or exceeding professional expectations. The objective is to achieve high satisfaction.
2. Marketing is about educating, shifting beliefs and understanding and changing behaviour. The objective is create awareness.

So rather than a service strategy of simply trying to keep customers happy enough to continue with us, we need to have a second marketing strategy whereby we are continually trying to win more support from them and actively change their behaviour from quietly happy customers to becoming active and willing brand ambassadors on our behalf who also do all of their business with our practice.

The post Why your advisory practice needs two marketing targets appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Stacey Edmonds, Founder of ‘Creator of Dodgy or Not?’

Westpac’s $500 million female entrepreneurs fund will be expanded by another $500 million to $1 billion, to further address the challenges faced by women accessing finance to start or grow a business.

The commitment, launched two years ago, has just reached its $500 million target, supporting 1,155 women across a range of industries including retail, healthcare, hospitality and creative services.

Tamara Bryden, Westpac Managing Director, Business Lending, said: “I’m proud that we’ve helped more than a thousand women start or grow a business since launching the fund just two years ago.

“We know that female business leaders believe it’s harder for women to get finance than it is for men^[1]. Having a fund dedicated to addressing this issue means it is always a priority for us.

“I think our bankers also understand the barriers that women face when starting a business, such as unconscious bias, which may discourage them from seeking finance. You can’t argue with the results we’re seeing and that helps change perceptions.

“We’re seeing some incredible new business ideas come to life led by super savvy, entrepreneurial women, who are challenging the status quo and bringing great ideas to the table.”

Westpac’s Women in Business research1 shows the entrepreneurial spirit of female business leaders in Australia. Nearly half (45%) of female SME business leaders have started a business from scratch, compared to 27% of their male counterparts.

Of the women surveyed:

• 94% of women view running their own business as a path to wealth and financial independence and 9 in 10 believe that the social impact of their business is as important as the economic impact
• 38% of female SME business leaders are creating jobs
• 30% are sponsoring local events
• 24% are investing in social causes.

Westpac’s efforts have not only provided financial support for female entrepreneurs but also simplified the lending process for all eligible start-ups and scale-up businesses. Now Start Ups can apply for funding with a sound business plan and budget projections^[2].

This change has made it significantly easier for eligible early-stage businesses to access the necessary funds2.

Westpac customer case study

Business name: Lively a Learning Agency, Creator of Dodgy or Not?

Founder & Business Owner: Stacey Edmonds

Business Website: dodgyornot.com.au

Location: Sydney

Dodgy or Not? is an innovative gamified learning platform designed to enhance digital literacy and scam detection.

It teaches users to instinctively spot scams and cyber threats through experiential learning. The platform uses real scam data and behavioural science to create an engaging educational experience.

Co-founder Stacey Edmonds, a former teacher and Deloitte partner, leveraged her background in sociology, criminology, and technology to democratise learning and build this impactful tool.

With funding from Westpac, Dodgy or Not? launched a school program and new website, aiming to make scam awareness second nature for users globally.

———-

Notes:
[1] The research was commissioned by Westpac and conducted by Lonergan Research in October 2024 in accordance with the ISO 20252 standard. 1,010 Australian SME Business Leaders were surveyed throughout Australia including capital city and non-capital city areas. The survey was conducted online with data weighted to the latest population estimates sourced from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

2 Terms & Conditions, fees & charges and eligibility and credit criteria apply.

Media enquiries:

media@westpac.com.au

Visit Westpac’s media centre

Westpac Wire: Subscribe here

If you wish to unsubscribe to Westpac media releases please email

media@westpac.com.au

Westpac Banking Corporation ABN: 33 007 457 141

Confidential communication
Westpac Banking Corporation (ABN 33 007 457 141, AFSL 233714)

The post Westpac’s $1 billion promise for women in business appeared first on AdviserVoice.

The international award recognises NAB Private Wealth’s commitment to excellence in private banking and their expertise in servicing high-net worth client needs across a suite of specialised wealth management services.

NAB Private Wealth Executive Michael Saadie said the award’s focus on excellence in client service reflected the same emphasis NAB Private Wealth gives to all aspects of a client’s experience, whether through the private banking within NAB Private Wealth, the specialised investment advice provided through JBWere and our investment specialists, or the unique capabilities of self-directed investment platform nabtrade.

“Our client-first approach is not just a guiding principle but a differentiator that drives everything we do,” Mr Saadie said. This award is pleasing recognition of our commitment, and we are proud of the leading services and investment opportunities we’ve developed as part of NAB Private Wealth’s unique client proposition”.

“We have a 1000+ strong team of professionals with a strong client service mindset across wealth advisory, private banking and investment services. I believe our commitment to putting our client’s needs at the heart of everything we do every day is how NAB Private Wealth is now recognised as Australia’s most awarded private bank.”

In announcing the award, Global Finance spoke about the qualities that distinguished NAB Private Wealth from its peers: “The winners are not always the biggest institutions, but rather the best – those that individuals rate highly when choosing a provider,” said Joseph Giarraputo, founder of Global Finance. “Excellence in private banking goes beyond financial acumen; it combines a nuanced understanding of clients’ unique aspirations with insightful economic knowledge.”

NAB Private Wealth will officially be awarded alongside other global private bank winners at a ceremony in New York in March 2025.

The post NAB Private Wealth awarded Australia’s Best Private Bank for fourth straight year appeared first on AdviserVoice.

One way to do this is to consider introducing a service features that does deliver a sense of urgency.

One of the ongoing challenges in marketing professional services is simply getting people to “act now”.  We have to overcome their lack of urgency.

Because our service will still be there tomorrow, right? And usually the need to be addressed by us is a future need, and maybe well into the future….so there is little urgency, or immediacy to act now. In the customers minds they are often thinking things like:

“The insurance probably won’t be needed until I am in my 50’s really.”

“Retirement is still 22 years away….”

“That tax return isn’t due for 4 more months…I’ve got time…”

…and on it goes.

To be fair though, the customers are sort of right. There often IS still plenty of time to plan. The mortality statistics ARE on their side generally. There really isn’t actually “urgency” to act. It’s not like we have product scarcity driving a frenzy of potential “buyers” lined up at the shop door…you know; “only 12 insurance policies left” or “hurry! Retirement plans in their final days“.

But acting sooner rather than later is one of the keys to successful financial planning, right? We know that the earlier they act, or plan, the lower the overall cost to them in the long run, and the more (or better) choices they have for managing their future needs. We know too that if we can get them to act earlier there is a stronger likelihood of us being able to deliver a strategy and a plan that actually achieves what they wanted. So time is of the essence really.

The dilemma then is that while the customers are right in that there is often not an urgent requirement to act in the next week (or whatever), it is important that they do actually get on and act, rather than wait until a crisis comes and there is genuine urgency.  High importance, but low urgency is something that advisers need to resolve on the clients behalf.

One way to do this is to consider introducing a service features that does deliver a sense of urgency. A marketing department might call that a “compelling offer” perhaps. Something which says subtly “do this now and gain this additional valuable benefit because you acted now”.

There are a host of genuine compelling offers that help customers decide to act now rather than defer seeking advice, that have proven track records in professional services.  Some examples would be:

• Complementary second opinions, or audits of existing plans.
• Restricted (Invitation only) seminars or briefings, tools or calculators.
• Guaranteed or fixed price cost (fee) for a period of time or particular type of work.
• Genuine “special offers”, such as guaranteed acceptance on a type of insurance or a waiver of fees from a fund manager.
• Bundled offers of services for a fixed period of time of selected group of people.  That is, a premium package of services or products at a discounted price or exclusive group.
• Research, reports, case studies or trial logins to DIY software.

The point is that we can create a sense of urgency to act by introducing an element of scarcity, or a guarantee, or additional resources that are not usually available and then placing some genuine restrictions upon them. They are for a limited time. Or they are for a limited number of customers. or they are for a fixed price, or saving. Or buying the bundle does include stuff they otherwise wouldn’t have got, or got at that price point. It is the additional valuable benefits that are available on a restricted basis which become the compelling offer to act now.

It is simply marketing perhaps but the reality is that while our service and expertise is important and valuable, we do need to try and create the sense of urgency to act if we are to help customers to our best ability to achieve what they aspire to.  Bundling products & services into a “value package” can do it, and so too can introducing exclusivity or scarcity if they are genuine. So think about this: how many new clients can you actually handle and take on personally this year?

For my business there is an absolute limit to how many I can coach personally. Simply putting it out there that I can only work with 10 personal clients a year does create a sense of exclusivity and urgency and shortens the clients decision-making timeframe. And that is ok…it is not false “salesmanship” and nor is it doing a disservice to dozens of others who may (or may not) have wanted to work with me…I can’t help everyone and am not going to try either.

So how many new clients can you actually handle personally this year?

Why not tell your target market that there is a limit?  That will get some folk moving at least I’d bet.

The post How do you create an “Act Now” mindset with clients? appeared first on AdviserVoice.