April 2003

April 2003

Creative Catalyst InsightsCreative Catalyst Insights

A Quantitative Research Project conducted by Creative Catalyst Insights for Australian Stock Exchange

ASX Contacts: Mary Anne Muscat, Debra Surman

Non Broker Financial Planners

Creative Catalyst InsightsCreative Catalyst Insights 2

Contents

Introduction 3

Our Financial Planning Landscape 8

Sample characteristics 9

Client profiles 21

Financial Planning Tools and Fee Structure 31

Sources of research 32

Administration platforms 41

Fees 47

Interface with ASX World 53

Use of listed investments 54

Share usage and attitudes 69

Brokers 92

Information and education 111

Summary and Implications 126

Page No


Introduction Background Research objectives Methodology


Background In 2000, ASX undertook quantitative research to assess the role

of FP’s in ASX markets but it was suspected that much had changed since then.

New research was commissioned in 2002/3 – a two stage project: Stage One – Qualitative research:

24 in-depth interviews (phone and face-to-face) Conducted in July/August 2002 Purpose:

• to explore relevant issues prior to quantitative research

• to understand appropriate language/framing when talking to FP industry

• to address specific qualitative objectives eg educational and marketing feedback

Stage Two – Quantitative research: Detailed findings contained in this report


Research objectives

To understand the extent to which financial planners are recommending listed investments to clients

To ascertain the main research sources currently used by financial planners and the financial planning industry

To investigate current platforms used by the financial planning industry - in general and specifically in regard to listed investments

To measure the key triggers and barriers to involvement in regard to shares specifically

To gauge understanding of currently available listed securities and interest in learning more

To evaluate the current relationship between financial planners and brokers

To gain insight into current and future fee structures of financial planners


Methodology A total of n=201 interviews were conducted with financial planners

and senior managers within the financial planning industry. Interviews were conducted by telephone (CATI). Sample drawn from electronic yellow pages using ANSIC codes. Fieldwork:

21st February to 28th March

Sample/sample control: Detailed filtering to ensure correct respondents including presence of

PA holders; specific requirements re: job title/job description; size; ‘tiedness’; DIY super specialty; high net worth

Specific level of seniority required – no support staff, paraplanners Validation of respondents on key qualification questions

15 min Questionnaire:


Our Financial Planning Landscape


5 years or less44%

6 to 10 years25%

11 to 20 years21%

Don't know/unsure

1%

More than 20 years9%

Base: n=201

Industry tenure


% Other % Adviser Related

FPA 65ICAA CA financial planning accredited 10

CFP fully accredited 32

CPA or CPA financial planning accredited 12

DFP partially completed 35 SIA/ASIA 18

DFP fully completed 44

AFA or Assoc of Financial Advisers 6

Memberships & qualifications

Base: n=201


% of clients under 50

years of age

% of clients aged over 50 years of age and not

retired

% of clients aged over

50 years and retired

Mean 47 29 25

Client profiles – lifestage groups

Base: n=201

Most financial planners have a mix of client types, including on average:

Around half aged under 50 years of age

Around one quarter aged over 50 years and not retired

Around one quarter aged over 50 years and retired


% of Clients with a Portfolio of $500K or more

None11%

Under 25 percent

53%

25-50 percent20%

51-75 percent8%

More than 75 percent

5%Don't

know/unsure3%

Mean = 22%

Client profiles – portfolio value

On average 22% of FP clients have a portfolio valued at $500K or more.

One in 10 (11%) have no clients with a portfolio valued at $500K or more and a further 53% only have 25% or less of clients fitting this description.

Advisers with a client base skewed toward high net worth clients are more likely to: Be located in Sydney or Melbourne -

26% of clients have a portfolio worth $500K+

Be small/medium independent advisers - 31%

Specialise in DIY super accounts – 51% of the clients of DIY super specialists have a portfolio worth $500K+

High net worthskew

Base: n=201


% of Clients with Self Managed Super Funds

None10%

Less than 10 percent

54%

10-30 percent20%

31-50 percent7%

More than 50 percent

6%Don't

know/unsure3%

Mean = 15%

Self managed

super (SMSF) skew

Client profiles – self managed super

A self managed super skew is defined as having 31% or more of clients with a self managed super or other DIY super fund – on average, 15% of clients.

Financial planners with a self managed super skew are more likely to be: Melbourne based (20%) From a small/medium independent firm

(20%) Logically, strongly skewed toward high

net worth clients (26%)

Similar levels of SMS clients are seen irrespective of industry tenure. This may reflect that while self managed super advice can be the domain of longer term, established relationships, it may also be an area of competence for younger/newer advisers with specialist knowledge in this area.

Base: n=201


Financial Planning Tools & Fee Structure


Sources of research General research use Research sources for listed investment products Use of IRESS/Web IRESS


Research sources for listed products

42

41

35

21

19

9

9

12

6

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

In house researchdepartment

Broker research

VanEyk

Morning Star

Assirt

InvestorWeb

Lonsdale

Another research source

None

%

JB Were 15

SSB 10

Macquarie Bank 9

ABN Amro Morgans 3

Sanford 3

UBS Warburg 3

All other brokers <3

Base: n=187 (Use listed products and/or listed products on recommended list)


Research sources for listed products (cont) In house research (42%) and broker research (41%) lead the list

of research sources for listed products. In house research is likely to incorporate key information from a

number of the other sources listed In terms of broker research, JB Were (15%), SSB (10%) and

Macquarie (9%) are used by the largest numbers

Information specialists are mentioned by 52%. VanEyk (35%) significantly outperforms competitors Morning Star

(21%), Assirt (19%), InvestorWeb (9%) and Lonsdale (9%) Twelve percent use another source for listed product research – the

list of ‘others’ includes Mercer, MLC 360 and Aegis

On average, 2 sources are being used to research listed investments. This average is fairly consistent across analysis groups. A wide variety of combinations are used, with no one pair really dominating. These include: In house research department and Van Eyk 19% VanEyk and Morning Star 15% In house research department and broker research 11% In house research department and Morning Star 11% VanEyk and broker research 11%


Administration platforms General platform type usage Platforms for listed investments


Platform types used for client investments

83

58

57

37

4

1

4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Master Trusts

SMSF's

Wraps and IDPS's

SMA's/IMA's

Other

Don't know/Unsure

None

Base: n=201


Platform used for listed investments

Spontaneous: %

ASGARD 11

BT Portfolio Service 10

Flexiplan FlexiInvestment Fund 7

JB Were Invian/JB Were Custodial Service 7

Navigator/Norwich 7

In house proprietary 7

AMP Investment Solutions 6

Colonial First Choice Investment Funds 6

Macquarie Wrap 6

MLC MasterKey 4

Perpetual Personal Porfolio 3

Tower Trust Portfolio Management Service 2

All others <2

Don’t know/unsure 7

Do not use for listed investments 27

Base: n=180 (Use platform/s, use listed investment and/or listed investments included on recommended list)


Platform types used (cont)

The vast majority, 96%, are using an administration platform to administer and hold client investments (although not necessarily for all clients).

The most popular platform type is a master trust (83%), followed by self managed super funds platforms (58%), wraps and IDPS’s (57%) and then separately or individually managed accounts (SMA’s or IMA’s) at 37%.

Multiple platform use is common, with most using two or three. The most common combinations are: Master trust and SMSF – 52% Master trust and wrap – 51% Wrap and SMSF – 41%

Use of wraps (70%) and SMSF (67%) platforms is higher among industry newcomers (5 years or less) than those who have been in the industry for 11 years or more (46% and 49% respectively). This may reflect new learning/training among those who have entered the industry more recently.

The range of platforms used for listed investments is diverse, with ASGARD (11%) and BT Portfolio Service (10%) as the top ranking.

Of interest – 27% of those using a platform and with involvement in listed investments do not manage their listed investments within any platform.


Fees Current fee methods Current versus anticipated future fee methods


67

65

69

52

41

32

55

2

29

21

17

11

9

1

1

9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Up front commission

Fee for service

Trail commissions

Ongoing review fees

Asset based fees

Initial consultation fee

Plan preparation fees

Don't know/unsure

Current Main current

Base: n=201

Current fee methods


Current fee methods (cont)

Within the financial planning industry, the most popular fee methods are: Trail commission – 69%, and the third ranked main source – 17% Up front commissions – 67%, and the first ranked main source – 29% Fee for service – 65%, and the second ranked main source – 21%

Following this: Plan preparation fees are used by 55% Ongoing review fees – 52% Asset based fees – 41% Initial consultation fees – 32%

On average, 4 sources of fees are likely to be used. The most common combinations are: Up front and trail commissions – 56% Fee for service and trail commissions – 49% Plan preparation fees and trail commissions – 47% Plan preparation fees and ongoing review fees – 44% Plan preparation fees and fee for service – 44%


Current fee methods (cont)

When looking at main source of fees, there is a high level of similarity between analysis groups, but with some skews of interest: Fee for service is very much a characteristic of small/medium

independents (31%) rather than large institutions (16%) or small/medium tied (13%)

Fee for service is also a more common main fee method for those with a skew toward high net worth clients (34% v 15%) while those not specialising in this type of client are more inclined toward up front fees (35% v 18%) and trail commissions (22% v 9%)

Melbourne main source is more likely to be asset based than Bris/Adel/Perth (16% v 3%)


29

21

17

11

9

1

1

9

14

36

18

11

9

1

10

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Up front commission

Fee for service

Trail commissions

Ongoing review fees

Asset based fees

Initial consultation fee

Plan preparation fees

Don't know/unsure

Main current In 2 years time

Base: n=201

Current v future fee methods


Stated future intentions are unlikely to play out to the full in the coming two year period. These findings are much better used to gain insight into the trend in fee methods, rather than the magnitude of change. It appears that the role of the lesser used fee methods (ongoing fees,

asset based fees, initial consultation fees, plan preparation fees) is unlikely to change much in the next two years

Trail will also continue to be the main source of fees for around 2 in 10

The biggest anticipated change in behaviour is likely to be a move: Away from up front commission (currently the main source of fees for

29%, anticipated to fall to be 14% in two years time) Toward fee for service (currently the main source of fees for 21%,

anticipated to increase to 36% in two years time)

Current v future fee methods (cont)


Interface with ASX World


Use of listed investments Use of recommended/approved lists Recommended/approved list inclusions Listed investments used in client portfolios


Use of recommended/approved list

As suggested in the qualitative research stage, the vast majority of planners/planning organisations (89%) make client recommendations from recommended or approved list.

Large institutions (98%) have significantly higher usage than small/medium independents (78%)

Yes89%

No9%

Don't know2%

Base: n=201


Recommended list inclusions

88

62

16

46

35

33

39

29

13

7

15

6

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Listed Property Trusts

Direct - Australian shares

Direct - Overseas shares

Listed Investment Companies

Listed corporate bonds/floating rate notes

Convertible notes/preference shares

Instalments

Other warrant products

Options

Futures

Exchange Traded Funds

None/unsure

Base: n=178 (With recommended/approved list)

Net (excl. Listed P

roperty Trust) =

78%

Net S

hares = 62%

Net D

erivatives = 46%

Net W

arrants = 44%


Recommended list inclusions (cont)

Listed investments are included on the vast majority of recommended/approved lists.

Not surprisingly, the most often included listed investment is listed property trusts (88%), with shares the next ranked inclusion (62%)

Following this:• listed investment companies are included on the recommended lists of 46%• warrant products are included in 44% (instalments 39% and other warrants

29%), while other derivatives are much less common (13% options and 7% futures).

• interest rate products such as listed corporate bonds and convertible notes are included in around 3 in 10 cases (35% and 33% respectively)

On average, 4 listed investments are included on any recommended list. The most common combinations are:

Australian shares and LPT’s included on 64% of recommended lists LPT’s and LIC’s included on 48% Australian shares and LIC’s included on 40% LPT’s and instalments included on 39%

High Net Worth advisers – significantly higher mentions of listed corporate bonds or floating rate notes (53% v 27%), listed investment companies (64% v 37%) and convertible notes or preference shares (48% v 26%). It is suggested that this additional diversity is required in order to satisfy the needs of a wealthier, more sophisticated client base.


Listed investments used in client portfolios

80

65

13

31

27

26

22

16

8

3

6

11

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90







Instalments


Options

Futures


None/unsure

Base: n=201

Net (excl. Listed P

roperty Trust) =

74%

Net S

hares = 65%

Net D

erivatives = 29%

Net W

arrants = 26%


Listed investments used (cont) Almost 9 in 10 (89%) of financial planners use some kind of listed investment product in their

client portfolios. Listed property trusts are the most popular listed investment for client portfolios – used by

80%. Following this:

Australian shares are used by 65% and overseas shares by 13% Listed investment companies – 31% Convertible notes/preference shares – 27% and Listed corporate bonds/floating rate

notes 26% Warrants 26% - instalments 22% and some reported usage of other warrant products –

16% Options, futures and exchange traded funds are all used in client portfolios by less than 1

in 10 On average, 3 or 4 listed products are used, the most popular combinations being:

LPT’s and Australian shares – 66% Australian shares and LIC’s – 32% LPT’s and LIC’s - 31% LPT’s and convertible notes/preference shares – 30% Australian shares and convertible notes/preference shares – 29% High Net Worth advisers use an average of 4 listed investment products in client

portfolios. Those not specialising in this area use 3. This average includes significantly higher use of:

• listed corporate bonds or floating rate notes (38% v 20%)• listed investment companies (46% v 23%)• convertible notes or preference shares (44% v 19%)


Share usage and attitudes Incidence of share usage Sources of client advice Proportion of assets invested in shares Minimum funds for shares Reasons for recommending/not recommending


Main source of client advice for shares

As previously noted, 65% are using shares in client portfolios. This includes both active management and acquired management ie client came to the planner already holding shares. Only for one third (32%) is the

adviser/planner the main source of advice for the share investments of a client

For a similar proportion (38%) the adviser refers the client to a broker where there is an established relationship

However, for 1 in 4 (27%), although clients have shares in the portfolio being managed by the adviser, the main source of advice is via a broker relationship outside the control of the adviser

Adviser themselves 32%

A broker referral given by adviser 38%

A broker independent of adviser 27%

Don't know/unsure 3%

Base: n=130 (Use Australian shares)


Main source of client advice (cont)

An adviser serving as the main source of share advice is much more likely in: Small/medium independent organisations (43%) Advisers specialising in high net worth clients (50%)


36

18

21

6

4

1

3

6

5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

No minimum

Less than $100,000

At least $100,000

At least $200,000

At least $300,000

At least $400,000

At least $500,000

Don't advise on shares**

Don't know/unsure

Minimum funds to recommend shares

Average = $81,000(excl. No minimum and DK)


** The proportion of respondents that “use shares in client portfolio but don’t advise” AND are unable to nominate a $ minimum.


Minimum funds (cont) Context - respondents were asked to indicate if there was a

minimum level of funds under management that a client must have before direct investment in shares would be recommended. More than one-third (36%) do not require a specific level of funds to

consider shares appropriate A further 18% set a minimum that is quite low – less than $100,000 For 35%, there are more stringent guidelines:

• 21% - Shares only appropriate for clients with more than $100,000 funds invested


46

21

12

12

11

8

7

6

4

4

3

2

2

2

13

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Client demand/interest

Diversification

Makes sense in balanced portfolio

Suits client risk profile

Accelerated growth

Control/more control than managed funds

Tax effective

Income/returns/dividends

Low fees

Flexibility

Sophisticated client base

High net worth clients

Long term performance of shares

Suitable for SMSF

Other

Reasons for recommending shares


Spontaneous:


Reasons for recommending shares (cont)

Financial planner involvement in direct shares is strongly influenced by client demand: 46% give this as their reason for recommending shares Client demand is mentioned at levels two times higher than the next

ranking reason Other key reasons for recommending shares include:

Diversification (21%) Makes sense in a balanced portfolio (12%) Suits client risk profile (12%) Accelerated growth (11%)


Reasons not recommending shares

Spontaneous: %

Not licensed to recommend shares 55

Not in recommended or approved list 11

Prefer to refer clients to the ‘experts’ 11

Don’t have the time to track shares 10

Don’t know enough about shares 8

Shares are not our expertise/don’t deal in shares 6

Doesn’t suit client risk profile 3

Professional indemnity/insurance 3

Remuneration/don’t get paid enough 3

Other 4

Don’t know/unsure 1

Base: n=71 (Do not use Australian shares)


Brokers Incidence of broker use Brokers used Broker services used


Incidence of broker usage

Of the total sample: 81% use and can name their broker/s 10% claim to not use a broker 9% don’t know or are unsure note

that this could be interpreted in two ways 1) don’t know/unsure if have a broker OR 2) don’t know/unsure of broker name

Use broker 81%

Do not use broker 10%

Don't know/unsure 9%

Base: n=201


Base: n=180 (Use a broker)

Details of brokers usedBrokers

used

%

Main broker

%

JB Were 33 22

SSB 27 15

Macquarie Bank 22 11

Sanford 11 6

Challenger 5 3

ABN Amro Morgans 4 3

CommSec 4 3

Ord Minnet 4 2

Lonsdale Securities 4 2

Credit Suisse First Boston 3 1

Etrade 3 1

Bell Potter 3 1

All other brokers <3 <2

Don’t know/unsure 10 14

Average 1.7 brokers


Details of brokers used (cont)

On average, only one or two brokers are being used by any planner/organisation.

It is clear that for the financial planning industry a handful of brokers dominate: 33% are using JB Were including 22% as a main broker – this

corresponds with JB Were also being the dominant broker research source

27% are using SSB, 15% as a main broker 22% are using Macquarie Bank, 11% as a main broker 11% are using Sanford, 6% as a main broker

The above are the four main players All other brokers are mentioned by 5% or fewer.


23

64

59

33

27

3

6

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Execution only

Execution and advice

Research

Model portfolios

Administration of clientshare portfolios

Other

Don't know

Broker services used

Base: n=180 (Use a broker)


Broker services used (cont)

Brokers are being used by the financial planning industry for: Execution and advice – 64% Execution only – 23% Research – 59% Model portfolios – 33% Administration of client share portfolios – 27%

Thus, a wide range of services and interestingly, only 1 in 4 will use a broker for execution without also receiving advice/input from the broker.

On average, 2 brokers services are used with the most likely combination being research plus execution and advice – 52%.

However, model portfolios are also a popular broker offering. Of those using broker services: Model portfolios plus research – 32% Model portfolios plus execution and advice - 31%

The use of broker services is quite uniform across analysis groups.


Information and education Current knowledge levels Interest in learning more


Knowledge of investment types

-38

-34

-22

-15

-40

-20

-30

-26

-37

-26

-12

-38

-48

-44

-40

-47

-51

-49

-47

-47 16

26

21

29

13

45

33

18

23

84

70

-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100








Instalments


Options

Futures

Know nothing Know a litte Good understanding

Base: n=201

30

16

76

82

66

55

87

71

79

73

84


Knowledge of investment types (cont) Direct Australian shares (84%) and listed property trusts (70%)

are the only two listed investments that a reasonable share of people feel they have a ‘good understanding’ of.

Beyond this, less than half have a ‘good understanding’ of: Listed investment companies – 45% Convertible notes/preference shares – 33% Instalments – 29% Options – 26% Direct overseas shares – 23% Warrants (other than instalments) – 21% Listed corporate bonds/floating rate notes – 18% Futures – 16% Exchange traded funds – 13%

The general inclination is planners claiming to ‘know a little’ about most listed investments.

The products that financial planners know least about are: Exchange traded funds Direct overseas shares Futures Listed corporate bonds/floating rate notes Warrants (other than instalments)


Knowledge of investment types (cont)

Convertible notes or preference shares

• highest levels of ‘good understanding’ among small/medium independent organisation (46%) compared to large institutions or small/medium tied organisations (26% and 23% respectively)

• those with a high net worth skew are more inclined to say they have a ‘good understanding’ (46%) compared to those not specialising in high net worth clients (27%)

Exchange traded funds

• while the majority of those who have been in the industry 11 years or more (54%) ‘know nothing’ about exchange traded funds’, the majority of newer market entrants (5 years or less) ‘know a little’ (57%)


23

18

22

20

20

17

34

26

29

37

36

40

32

42

42

39

33

29

44

21

26

23

-36

-28

-46

-42

-38

-32

-45

-36

-36

-39

-48

-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80








Instalments


Options

Futures

Very interested Somewhat interested Not interested

Base: n=201

Interest in learning more about investment

63

70

53

55

59

66

54

63

63

59

50


Interest in learning more (cont)

Levels of interest in learning more about listed investments are encouragingly high. When the net of ‘very interested’ and ‘somewhat interested’ are considered:

70% - Direct Australian shares 60-69%

• listed investment companies – 66%• instalments – 63%• other warrant products – 63%• listed property trusts – 63%

50-59%• options – 59%• convertible notes/preference shares – 59%• listed corporate bonds/floating rate notes – 55%• exchange traded funds – 54%• direct overseas shares – 53%• futures – 50%

Direct Australian shares ‘very interested’ also higher among those with a high net worth skew in their client

base (56% v 38%) Listed corporate bonds/floating rate notes

‘very interested’ higher among those with a high net worth skew in their client base (28% v 13%)

Convertible notes/preference shares ‘very interested’ higher among those with a high net worth skew in their client

base (32% v 18%)


Interest in learning more (cont)

Listed investment companies

• ‘very interested’ higher among those with high net worth skew (38%) and DIY skew (54%) than those without (20% and 22% respectively)


• ‘very interested’ higher among those with high net worth skew (35% v 15%)

Instalments

• ‘very interested’ higher in Sydney (30%) than Bris/Adel/Perth (15%)


Summary and Implications


Portfolio value On average, 22% of clients have a portfolio of $500K or more.

High – Sydney; Melbourne; small/medium independent advisers; advisers using Australian shares

Self managed superannuation On average, 15% of clients have self managed superannuation

funds. High – Melbourne; small/medium independent; FP/Management; high

net worth

Client profiles


Fees

29

21

17

11

9

14

36

18

11

9

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Up front commission

Fee for service

Trail commissions

Ongoing review fees

Asset based fees

Main current In 2 years time

• While ‘up front commission’ followed by ‘fee for service’ are the current predominant fee methods, it is anticipated that in the future there will be a strong move from ‘up front commission’ toward ‘fee for service’.

• Currently ‘fee for service’ more likely among small/medium independents and high net worth.


The most common listed investments used in client portfolios are: listed property trusts - 80% Australian shares - 65% Listed investment companies – 31% Convertible notes/preference shares (hybrids) – 27% Corporate bonds/floating rate notes – 26% Instalment warrants – 22%

The two core reasons for recommending shares in client portfolios are: Client demand/interest (46%) Diversification (21%)

The main reasons cited for not recommending shares are: Not licensed (55%) Not in recommended/approved list (11%) Prefer to refer clients to the experts (11%) Don’t have time to track shares (10%)

Listed investment usage and attitude

Financial planner share recommendations likely to be closely aligned to general investor sentiment reactive to client demand rather than

proactive in encouraging client exposure


Among the total sample, 81% are aware of broker/s relationships with their organisation. On average, those with a broker have one or two broker relationships, with the main 4 players being: JB Were SSB Macquarie Bank Sanford

A variety of broker services are used. These are, in priority: Execution and advice Research Model portfolios Administration of client share portfolios Execution only (no advice)

Share advice and brokers


Knowledge and interest

Good understanding/very interested

Knowledge

67-100% Australian shares

Listed property trusts

33-66% Listed investment companies

Convertible notes/pref. shares

Less than 33% Instalments

Options

Overseas shares



Futures


Interest in learning more

Australian shares

Listed investment companies

Instalments


Listed property trusts

Options

Convertible notes/pref. shares



Overseas shares

Futures

‘Good understanding’ among only small proportions for most listed investment products BUT reasonable to high interest in learning more


As corroborated in the qualitative research, it would appear that financial planners have a good understanding of:

a) listed property trusts, and

b) direct shares This knowledge is supported in terms of usage of these two

product types, while usage and/or understanding of other listed investment instruments is at a lower level.

Current use of listed investments generally is perhaps predictably higher among those with more specialist knowledge a skew toward high net worth clients and those with more of a focus on DIY clients.

Small/medium independent organisations have a higher degree of involvement with high net worth clients; specialist DIY; and those aged 50 years plus. Small/medium independent advisers are also more likely to be the main source of share advice for their clients.

Knowledge and interest (cont)


There is high interest in learning more about all listed investment products and qualitative research has identified ASX as an appropriate provider of information/education services. As outlined in the qualitative report this is likely to be more beneficial if

communicated within the FP world constructs rather than product focused.

Knowledge and interest (cont)

Documents

April 2003