Yes, there are large players in the market going about the business of poaching advisers and advisory groups from rivals. Though as far as I am aware there's nothing new there.
The secret dealings within companies are not restricted to the financial services industry, nor are the cutting and signing of fat bonus or sign-on cheques.
Sure, there's nothing particularly attractive about someone boasting about how much cash a rival gave them, but at least there is a name for the braggers: CUBs - cashed-up bogans.
Though that wasn't what got me thinking. What got me thinking was the end client and how do they gain from switching dealer groups.
Now I would like to clarify that there are of course those advisers and advisory groups that make the decision to change dealer groups out of legitimate need - through compliance concerns or those who choose to establish a breakaway group or those who choose to leave for ethical and moral reasons.
I even understand the advisers who decide to take the money and put it back into their business or actually do feel the group that has offered them significant sign-on bonuses is truly in line with their client value proposition. I do not dismiss that as a possibility.
However, what right does a client get in the thought process of an adviser who just takes the money because it is offered?
Is the client a consideration when moving dealer groups?
Many industry reports in the past 12 months have been based on how to further engage with clients, how to increase investor confidence in the financial advice industry, yet isn't it a backwards step if the client isn't a consideration amid the industry poaching and consolidation?
Perhaps I've missed something, though I hope I'm wrong that there could be some advisers out there thinking more about their bank accounts than their clients' financial future.
