Add new comment

Promises of something invariably turn into empty promises and a way to manipulate a vulnerable recipient.
It is no different in a personal relationship....where the person who cares least,retains the control.
Finding or creating a way out of something to your advantage , is much easier when empathy is missing.
Just ask how the handling of Agency Development Loans in the 1980's played out and how a number of long standing agents/advisers took their own lives when pushed to pay back monies they were very loosely advised by managers they would never ever have to repay.
If you were to say that advisers currently feel abandoned, victimized and vulnerable, it would be a significant understatement.
They have unjustly been the punching bag of all and sundry for the last decade because it's the easiest route to take.
It's easier to attack a small target than a large one and easier still when the level of care and empathy is non-existent.
It would be interesting to see how Dr. Simon Longstaff from the The Ethics Centre would make comment not about how advisers should be addressing their own ethical responsibilities, but how the ethical treatment of advisers by their licensees, by ASIC and by the media has played out over the last decade or so.
Has the treatment and assessment of advisers in general been ethical in it's approach or has it in fact been influenced by a pre-determined perception and an ability to attack a generally defenseless sector.