The upfront cost makes it a difficult decision to change Financial Planners

Services
,
1

Hey there.

I did your survey for the campaign on Financial Institution Review

But I was disappointed that I could add any comments on what I meant with my answers.

I will write my thoughts here.

When it comes to Financial Planners - my biggest issue is the upfront cost of doing a financial position, goals and risk profile when you move to a new financial planner.

It can cost near $4000 each time.

So this makes it very difficult to change financial providers as the initial outlay before they even do anything for you is off-putting.

I understand why it needs to be done, though.

So I suggest that if a new client has had an entire plan done in the last three years by an accredited AFSL Planner, all that needs to happen is a review to make sure they are happy with their risk profile and goals listed in the report. Then only financial position will need to be updated.

Also, like Doctors and Accountants – if you change Doctors/Accountants, the previous Doctor/Accountant is obligated to forward their past client/patients records to the new doctor/accountant. I think the same rue should apply to financial planners.

That’s my two cents’ worth.

9 Likes
2

Worth many times more than two cents.
I’d not even thought of the implications.
If one has paid for the reports, can you transfer the content to another party?

2 Likes
3

It appears that the transfer of records may not be so clear cut. Avant (avant.org.au) a Medical Defence Organisation (MDO) have this to say on the matter:

“At common law, a patient does not have a right of access to his or her medical records. However, under privacy legislation, patients have a right to request access to their records. Access must be provided subject to any limitations and procedures set out in the legislation.”

and

“If a patient wishes to transfer to another doctor, the new practitioner is entitled to a treatment summary or a copy of the records.”

and

“A reasonable cost can be charged for providing copies of medical records.”

So obligation can be met by supplying a treatment summary and it may be at cost to the user. Information on the OAIC site backs this up. Further as advised by the OAIC, if the Doctor has died the following may apply and affirms that under Common Law the records are not the patient’s property.

“If a doctor is part of a larger practice and has retired or died, the practice may retain the doctor’s records. Sometimes, when a doctor has died, the records will become the property of the executor of the doctor’s estate and the only way a patient can access the records is to locate the executor and seek a copy of the records”.

All being said, if a request is made under the Privacy Laws a Doctor should respond affirmatively to a request.

An Accountant according to an article written in response to the question of what are termed “ethical letters”, notes that not a great deal of information needs to be, or is required to be, sent to the new accountant on a client transferring to the new one. (Accountant Ethical Letters and Professional Courtesy)

“Disappointingly, the standard line I generally receive back from most accountants is:

“There is no professional or ethical reason why you should not accept the appointment. The client has been provided with copies of their last year returns. The company/trust registers are available for collection”

So out of everything I have asked for, all the previous accountant will offer to do, is to make the company/trust register available for collection (which I am happy to organise the collection of)”.

2 Likes
4

‘Should’ is an interesting word. Perhaps the vilified myhealth records might be government’s idea of a solution?

2 Likes
5

Yes it avoids the mire of a deceased Doctor’s estate and also avoids simply receiving a treatment summary, available for the life of the patient. Just this comes with the security of data concerns that have previously been raised in another topic about MyHealth records.

2 Likes