pete_mate said:
The most value that they add is through an understanding of superannuation laws, but they are otherwise largely useless.
Further, ppl that work there say its boring.
Credibility is gained one client at a time.
The major problem the industry faces imo, is that there is nothing to split the good from the bad. Eg. In accounting, think of ITP vs CA/CPA firms. At least there's some type of distinction. Financial advising needs that, to seperate the decent guys from the insurance/product floggers.
95% of people out there don't have complicated affairs, and a lot of advisers are complicating it, purely and simply because haven't got the faintest of ideas, and have simply made the natural progression from "insurance salesman" to "financial planner" through default when the industry first started out.
At the moment, the only distinction people have, is that some of the better advisers are now charging per hour/advice, and rebating the commissions on products to their clients.
EDIT: The big banks are the worst at it, because even though their products have entry/exit fee's and fee's to change just about anything to do with a clients portfolio, they will still recommend their banks product, because there's no other options to them.