Good point epsilonm, my understanding is that an FP can (and should) only use the term 'independent' if they at least run their own licence, rather than be part of a 'dealer group'. So essentially, they don't have a (tied) product provider.
i think the term is often mis-used and there should be stricter guidelines than what's already in place.
"What if the best advice you can give is: "pay off your mortgage?"
And the mortgage isn't one of the products you sell? Then, presumably, you can't advise that."
I am not independent, am licensed through a bank-owned dealer group and make a point of stating we are not independent. I will however advise someone to pay off their mortgage (have done for years) and may / not charge them for the advice - depending on what else is being done. I will sometimes advise people to stay / use their Industry Funds but get to a hurdle - I can't be paid a fee (or anything really) from their super so the client needs to pay out of their pocket without a tax deduction. If they have the cash at all.
This is where "independent" and "fee-for-service" is a great theory and ones I support, but isn't always practical for many Australians if they need to pay for the service / advice inefficiently. So the non-independent adviser might be the best and only option for them. Which brings us back to the 2 level option, which is a damn good start, I think. Cheers
