What advisers claim on their own websites: the study

This page explains the methodology and findings underpinning the figures on the page What is known about the effectiveness of financial advice? It is aimed at professionals and researchers. Every figure cited there can be verified here.

Jev is the language model that read and scored every page. It is made by TypeSafe, an Australian company, and was run at version jev-1.13.0; part 2.3 says what it was asked.

Written on 11 October 2026. Every table comes from scripts/claims/report_tables.py in the typesafeadvisers repository. The script reads the study's files in data/claims/. No figure in a table was typed by hand. The table numbers are the script's, so there are gaps where a table was left off this page.

1. In brief
2. 1. The question
3. 2. Method
4. 3. Findings
5. 4. The characteristics: what advisers say makes them good
6. 5. Cross-tabs
7. 6. Examples
8. 7. Limits
9. 8. The figures cited by In Your Interest Financial Planning's Investment Tools research page
10. 9. What the designation bodies and degree providers claim
11. 10. The word "independent": a check of the wording

In brief

• Almost every adviser website says the adviser is good. 84 per cent of sites claim quality without comparison: expert, experienced, trusted.
• Most sites promise a benefit other than returns: 77 per cent do. The three most common are "peace of mind" (543 sites), "financial future" (252) and "financial security" (215).
• Few sites claim better investment results: 5 per cent. Only 18 of those 110 sites give a source for a figure. Two examples: "we've delivered investment returns above and beyond the average super fund" and "how holistic financial planning can add at least 5.6% per year in structural value to your wealth".
• About one site in five uses a superlative or an honour (23 per cent). About one in seven compares itself with other advisers (14 per cent), for example "Most financial advisers disappear after they've sold you something" and "We offer a personal touch that the big firms don't".
• About one site in ten claims to be independent (9 to 12 per cent, depending on how confident the model's answer had to be).
• The reasons advisers give are mostly about the adviser: years of experience, personal service, qualifications and values.

1. The question

The Investment Tools page on the research into adviser performance covers what has been measured. This page shows what advisers claim about themselves on their own websites. It examines how often advisers promise higher returns, claim to outperform other advisers, or describe themselves as the best. It also examines how often they highlight their own quality or promise their clients further benefits. Finally, it examines the reasons they give and whether they claim independence.

2. Method

2.1 The data and its source

The pages are the directory's archive of advisers' own websites and Financial Services Guides (FSGs). They were captured from 27 August to 26 September 2026. The findings cover 8,967 pages from 2,220 websites and 4,277 advisers, 28 per cent of the current advisers on the register.

Table T3. Capture month of the pages in the findings, by kind

Capture dates run from 2026-08-27 to 2026-09-26.

2.3 The classifier

Jev, TypeSafe's model, read every page. The full run scored 9,507 pages, including 134 duplicates; merging them left 9,373 pages.

The version used was jev-1.13.0.

Jev read at most 12,000 characters of a page. For a longer FSG, it also read a 600-character window around each restricted word ("independent" and its relatives). It read ten windows at most.

Table T4. What Jev read: clipping and empty pages (pages in the findings)

Five dimensions were scored on one five-step scale.

• A, returns: the adviser delivers better investment results, however disguised. Two yes-or-no questions follow: is a figure given, and is a source for it given?
• B, better than other advisers: an explicit comparison with other advisers, firms, banks or "the industry".
• C, the best: superlatives and honours, such as best, leading, top, award-winning or most trusted.
• D, quality without comparison: expert, highly qualified, experienced, trusted, a careful process.
• E, client outcomes other than returns: peace of mind, confidence, retiring well, financial freedom, less tax, more time.

Two more questions followed. Independence was one choice of four: claims to be independent; independently owned or not aligned; states that it is not independent; silent. The characteristics were thirteen yes-or-no questions on the reason the page offers to choose the adviser. A characteristic counts where Jev's probability score is 0.5 or more.

A claim means a score of 2 or more on the scale just above. Jev ranked those pages' sentences for each dimension and kept the best one as evidence, with a maximum length of 300 characters.

3. Findings

Table T8. Share with a claim (score 2 or more; see part 2.3 just above for an explanation of 'score')

The interval is Wilson's (one of a number of alternative ways to calculate a confidence interval, showing the most likely range that contains the true value, i.e. the calculated value is 5.0% but the true value is likely between 4.1% and 5.9%).

Table T7a. Highest score per site, by site (n = 2,220), showing the strength with which the claim is made

Table T7b. Highest score per adviser, by adviser (n = 4,277)

Jev rarely gives a score of 2 but scores most clear claims at 3.

3.1 A, returns

Claims of higher returns are rare: 5 per cent of websites make such a claim. Most websites score 1 on dimension A. They mention investment advice but make no claim about results. When a website promises higher returns, it rarely backs up this claim. Of the 110 websites with an A claim, 39 quote a figure and 18 cite a source for it.

The question regarding figures refers to any information on investment results: "a percentage return, a dollar sum gained, or a performance ranking". It does not ask whether the page links the figure to a claim about returns. Consequently, the figure flag is also set for 38 websites that do not contain an A claim. A reviewer read the 47 pages behind these websites. Twenty-seven contain forecasts, market movements, index history, examples relating to superannuation or tax, or product returns. Thirteen contain ranking terminology and seven provide details on assets under management. The research page cites the figures from the websites that include a return claim. Of these 110 websites, 39 provide a figure and 18 cite a source.

Table T9. Performance or returns claims (A)

Of the 110 sites with a returns claim, 39 (35.5%) quote a figure and 18 (16.4%) cite a source.

A figure or a source counts where Jev's probability is 0.5 or more. A site counts where any page does. The figure question asks for any figure about investment results, a performance ranking included. It does not ask for a returns claim.

Four examples of returns claims: "Based on the SuperRatings 10-year comparison to 30 June 2025, we've delivered investment returns above and beyond the average super fund." "How holistic financial planning can add at least 5.6% per year in structural value to your wealth." "In the last 12 months, the average annual upside of our clients financial plans was $71,203 after financial advice fees." "Advisers generate an average 5.2 per cent extra cash per year for clients regardless of market movements, through services such as asset allocation and behavioural coaching, new research has revealed."

3.2 B, better than other advisers

One site in seven compares itself with other advisers: 14 per cent of all sites. By adviser the share is 18 per cent. The usual form is a short phrase, such as "sets us apart", "unlike many" or "different from other". In the ten examples of part 6, the comparison is with most advisers, big firms, institutions or banks. None names a rival.

3.3 C, the best

About one site in five uses a superlative or an honour: 23 per cent of sites, 26 per cent of advisers. The commonest forms are lists and awards: "top financial advisers", "adviser of the year", "one of Australia's top".

3.4 D, quality without comparison

This claim is nearly universal. 84 per cent of sites describe the adviser as good without a comparison. Most make the claim under its own heading or in the opening (a score of 3 or 4). Experience is the commonest vehicle: "years of experience" and "extensive experience" lead the phrases.

3.5 E, client outcomes other than returns

77 per cent of sites promise a benefit other than returns. "Peace of mind" appears in the evidence of 543 sites. "Financial security", "financial freedom" and "financial goals" follow. The promise is often the page's central message: 38 per cent of sites score 4.

3.6 Independence

"Independent" is a restricted word under section 923A of the Corporations Act 2001.

Jev's confidence varies on this question. Of the 489 pages answered "claims to be independent", 106 are below 0.6 confidence.

Table T10. Independence, as scored

A site or adviser takes the first class found on any of its pages, in the order of the rows.

68 of the 2,220 websites in the study have one page that claims independence and another that states it is not independent. Often the second page is the FSG.

4. The characteristics: what advisers say makes them good

Table T11. The characteristics offered, ranked by share of sites

The top four characteristics are all personal ones: years of experience, personal service, qualifications and values. Method and specialisation follow, on about half the sites. Outside endorsement is less common. Testimonials appear on 31 per cent of sites, and awards on 20 per cent. A fee model (fee-only, flat fee) is the rarest basis, at 8 per cent.

5. Cross-tabs

Every table in this part counts advisers, not sites.

Table T12. By licensee size band (current advisers on the licence)

Cells are the share of advisers in the group with a claim (score 2 or more). The last column is the share whose pages claim independence, as scored.

The large bands hold few licensees. In the band of 101 to 500, 23 licensees hold 5,027 current advisers; 1,507 of them are in the study as they have a website.

• Superlatives (C) appear to rise with size. They go from 12 per cent on a licence of one to 33 per cent on licences of 101 to 500.
• Promises of other benefits (E) rise with size. They go from 65 per cent on a licence of one to 76 to 86 per cent on licences of 11 or more.
• Claims of independence fall with increasing size. 19 per cent of advisers who hold their own licence make the claim, against 6 per cent on licences of 101 to 500.

Table T13. By highest qualification (AQF level)

Cells are the share of advisers in the group with a claim (score 2 or more). The last column is the share whose pages claim independence, as scored.

Advisers at master's or doctorate level claim independence more often: 13 per cent, against 6 to 11 per cent at the other levels. Advisers at advanced diploma level (AQF 6) make fewer comparative and superlative claims. Their shares are 12 per cent on B and 19 per cent on C. At bachelor level and above, the shares are 18 to 19 per cent on B and 26 to 29 per cent on C.

Table T14. By state

Cells are the share of advisers in the group with a claim (score 2 or more). The last column is the share whose pages claim independence, as scored.

Among the five larger states, B ranges from 12 per cent (SA) to 22 per cent (QLD). C ranges from 19 per cent (SA) to 29 per cent (QLD). The Northern Territory (13 advisers) and the advisers with no state (7) are too few to read.

Table T15. CFP holders against the rest (register designations)

Cells are the share of advisers in the group with a claim (score 2 or more). The last column is the share whose pages claim independence, as scored.

CFP holders and the rest differ by 2 points or less on A, B, C and E. CFP holders claim quality (D) 4 points more often, and independence 5 points more often (13.5 against 8.4 per cent).

Table T16. Web pages against FSGs (pages in the findings)

Claims sit mostly on web pages. The FSG is where the adviser states that it is not independent: 55 per cent of FSGs do. The FSG figures are understated, because 40 FSGs gave no text to read (part 7).

6. Examples

Table T17. Example evidence sentences

Ten per dimension, from the highest scores, one per site. Sites are named by index number only.

A Returns

B Better than other advisers

C The best

D Quality without comparison

E Client outcomes other than returns

7. Limits

Coverage. 4,429 of the 15,179 current advisers on the September 2026 register extract have a site read (29 per cent). After the exclusion of non-practices, the findings cover 4,277 advisers (28 per cent) on 2,220 sites. The study leaves out advisers with no website found, and advisers whose pages failed an identity check. Advisers with a website may differ from those without one.

Capture dates. The pages were captured from 27 August to 26 September 2026. A site may have changed since.

Clipping. Jev read at most 12,000 characters. It clipped 436 web pages (5.8 per cent). For 393 longer FSGs, it read only the opening and the restricted-word windows. A claim late on a long page may be missed.

Empty pages. 45 pages gave no parseable text at all: 40 FSGs and 5 web pages. 123 pages gave under 200 characters. These are probably scanned PDFs and pages built by script. They score 0. They are 0.5 per cent of all pages but 2.7 per cent of FSGs.

8. The figures cited by In Your Interest Financial Planning's Investment Tools research page

8,967 pages from 2,220 Australian adviser websites, captured August to September 2026, scored by the TypeSafe model jev-1.13.0.

Table T19. The shares, for citing

2,220 adviser websites (sites) and 4,277 advisers, captured August and September 2026.

Table T18. The commonest phrasings per dimension

Phrases of two to four words in the evidence sentences, counted once per site; at least 3 sites. Phrases made only of trade words (financial planning, wealth management) are left out.

A Returns: "investment returns" (5); "investment strategies" (4); "investment portfolios" (4); "investment portfolio" (4); "investment strategy" (4); "strong returns" (4); "consistently delivered" (3); "maximise your returns" (3); "maximise returns" (3); "maximum returns" (3); "year after year" (3); "track record" (3)

B Better than other advisers: "sets us apart" (34); "other financial" (20); "unlike many" (12); "many financial" (9); "other financial planners" (8); "different from other" (8); "financial advisory" (8); "many other" (8); "makes us different" (7); "advisory firms" (7); "unlike other" (7); "stand out" (7)

C The best: "top financial" (51); "adviser of the year" (48); "one of australia's" (46); "leading financial" (44); "best financial" (38); "top financial advisers" (30); "australia's top" (30); "award winning" (27); "australia's leading" (24); "advisers in australia" (22); "year award" (22); "one of australia's top" (20)

D Quality without comparison: "years experience" (234); "years of experience" (205); "certified financial" (170); "experience in the financial" (134); "retirement planning" (110); "experienced financial" (97); "experience in financial" (96); "financial goals" (96); "extensive experience" (94); "quality advice" (86); "highly qualified" (82); "high quality" (82)

E Client outcomes other than returns: "peace of mind" (543); "financial future" (252); "financial security" (215); "financial goals" (194); "financial freedom" (184); "helping clients" (117); "achieve financial" (111); "financial decisions" (101); "clients achieve" (100); "help you achieve" (75); "feel confident" (75); "achieve their financial" (72)

9. What the designation bodies and degree providers claim

9.1 The question and the method

In this section, a question is put to certification bodies and providers of degree programmes in the field of financial planning: Do they claim that holders offer benefits to their clients? And what evidence do they provide to support this?

The corpus comprises 47 lines, one per page or page section, all of which were collected on 11 October 2026. 42 pages were read and assessed. Five pages could not be assessed: these are listed in section 9.8, along with the respective reasons.

Each page was assessed manually on the basis of the five dimensions set out in part 2. Jev was not used, and no model was invoked. The subject of each assessment is the qualification:

• A returns: holders deliver better investment results.
• B better than other advisers: holders are better than non-holders.
• C the best: the gold standard, the highest designation, globally recognised.
• D quality without comparison: competence, ethics, rigour.
• E client outcomes other than returns: trust, confidence, peace of mind, better plans.

The scale is the one in part 2. A 0 means no claim and 1 a passing mention. A 2 is a clear claim made once. A 3 is a claim repeated or under its own heading, and 4 is the page's central message.

Five scoring conventions apply throughout:

1. A claim about trust counts under E, as the study brief maps it. "Advice you can trust" is therefore an E claim.
2. "The highest standards" of ethics or conduct counts under D. It adds only a 1 under C. C at 2 or more needs a claim about the designation itself, such as "gold standard" or "globally recognised".
3. A career comparison counts under B. "A competitive advantage over your peers" says that holders are better than non-holders, although the comparison is for employers, not clients.
4. A 4 needs the claim in the page title, the headline or the opening. The capture does not record the position of most sentences. Where the position is unknown, a repeated claim scores 3, not 4.
5. Research, a survey or data counts as evidence. A testimonial, a single case study or an industry award does not; the notes column records them.

9.2 Scores by body and provider

Each score is the highest that body or provider reached on any of its pages, on the five-step scale of part 2.3: 0 means no such claim, 1 a passing mention, 2 a clear claim made once, 3 a clear claim repeated or under its own heading, and 4 the page's central message. The FAAA's CFP pages come first.

Five pages have no score: STEP, the University of South Australia, Finsia, Deakin's Master of Financial Planning page, and LRS. Section 9.8 gives the reasons.

Four patterns stand out.

• Only one body cites evidence for a client benefit: the FAAA, for the CFP. The FAAA commissioned that evidence itself.
• No marketing page claims better investment returns (A). A reaches 2 only inside the FAAA's own survey reports, as satisfaction with wealth.
• Superlatives (C) are common among the bodies. The FAAA and the CFA Institute both call their designation the "gold standard". Kaplan and Griffith repeat the FAAA's claim for the CFP.
• The universities mostly claim skills and accreditation (D). Their client claims (E) describe what financial planners do in general, not what their own graduates do better.

The FAAA's CFP pages

The CFP certification page carries the strongest superlatives in the corpus:

• C 4: "For more than 30 years, CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER® Certification has been the standard of excellence for financial planners."
• C 4: "Recognised as the gold standard in financial planning, the CFP designation is both challenging and highly rewarding – earned only by the most dedicated advisers in the profession."
• C 4: "This opportunity allows you to graduate with both an academic qualification and the highest global professional designation in financial planning."
• B 3: "Apply today and become Australian consumers’ first choice."
• B 3: "Being a CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER Professional indicates that you are highly valued, possess a greater understanding of the financial world and are committed to your clients."
• E 3: "The CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER Professional of the year category recognises someone who has delivered best practice advice that has led to superior client outcomes and has demonstrated the highest professional standards embodied by an FAAA member."

The consumer FAQ makes the superlative to the public:

• C 2: "A CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER® professional has achieved the highest financial planning qualification worldwide."
• B 2: "To be a member of the FAAA, financial planners must have more experience, commit to ongoing education, as well as high professional and ethical obligations."
• E 3: "The FAAA is your trust mark when seeking a financial planner."

The consumer pages mostly speak of FAAA members, not of CFP holders alone. The "Better off" campaign is the main example:

• E 4: "Quality financial advice changes lives for the better."
• E 4: "It empowers Australians to build a more secure future, enjoy a higher quality of life, and experience less financial stress.*" The asterisk cites the Value of Advice 2024 report.
• C 2: "By connecting with a professional licenced financial adviser, consumers gain access to trusted expertise that sets the standard for financial advice globally."

Quotes from the other bodies

One quote per dimension scored 2 or more, at the body's highest score. The CSV holds every quote.

Aged Care Steps, Accredited Aged Care Professional (all pages are written for advisers)

• C 2: "That’s why we built our Accredited Aged Care Professional™ program, the gold standard in aged care advice training for financial advisers."
• D 3: "That’s why we built our Accredited Aged Care Professional™ program - to build your competency and credibility."
• E 4: "Aged Care Steps’ training and support services (through membership) are designed to help you deliver better outcomes for clients and families facing aged care decisions." This page is a case study headed "meaningful client outcomes".

FAAA, Aged Care Specialist

• D 3: "Gain confidence and competence to provide aged care financial advice and commit to ongoing training as a specialist."

Chartered Accountants ANZ, CA

• E 4: "Chartered Accountants (CAs) can help you chart the best course of action in what may feel like unchartered territory for you, whether you want to break even, keep pace with growth or explore new opportunities." The page is titled "Decisions a CA can help you make".
• B 3: "A competitive edge in a fast-paced world" (a heading, about careers).
• D 2: "Through rigorous training, practical experience and bound by a strong Code of Ethics, they help shape the profession and influence business strategy, shape economic outcomes and support sustainable growth within the community."

CPA Australia, CPA

• D 3: "The CPA designation comes with an assurance that CPA Australia has fully assessed and examined an accountant for competency and quality."
• E 3: "CPAs are trusted finance and business professionals whose broad expertise goes well beyond just tax and compliance."
• B 2: "Being a CPA gives you a competitive advantage over your peers."
• C 2: "CPAs are internationally recognised and membership is associated with a strong legacy, international presence and thought leadership."

SMSF Association, SSA

• C 3: "Industry leading designation (SSA® / SSAud®)"
• D 3: "The SMSF Association Specialist logo is a symbol of excellence and demonstrates that the individual’s SMSF expertise has been independently endorsed by the Association." The endorser here is the Association itself.
• E 2: "The listed professionals are a trusted source of information and advice for anyone managing their own super, as they have gone through rigorous and independent accreditation."
• B 2: "Set yourself apart and demonstrate your expertise to clients and your peers"

CFA Institute, CFA (no page for retail investors was found; the employer page stands in)

• C 4: "Earn the gold standard of investment credentials"
• C 3: "The CFA® credential is the gold standard in investment; put it at the center of your hiring and development programs."
• B 2: "Only hire the best when it comes to investment expertise and ethical decision-making."
• D 3: "Partner with us to connect your organization to investment professionals who meet the highest standards of competence and integrity."
• E 3: "By prioritizing fiduciary duty and client interests, charterholders foster lasting trust."
• A 1 (no quote kept): the employer page says that holders' "deep knowledge supports long-term value for your clients".

Actuaries Institute, Fellow (pages addressed to organisations)

• C 3: "Our qualifications are internationally-recognised."
• D 3: "An actuary brings the rigour, ethics and innovation you need to ensure your organisation receives maximum value from data science and AI."
• E 3: "Actuaries help you do data better."

STEP Canada, TEP (a substitute: STEP's global and Australian pages could not be fetched)

• E 3: "Get peace of mind knowing your trust and estate matters are in the hands of a certified expert committed to the highest professional standards."
• D 3: "Integrity: TEPs follow a strict Code of Professional Conduct."
• C 2: "TEPs are members of the global STEP organization and of a STEP Canada branch or chapter, the professional bodies setting the benchmark for excellence in the field of trusts and estates."
• B 2: "If you’re a professional in law, accounting, financial planning, or trust administration, the TEP designation sets you apart."

Kaplan Professional

• C 3: "Kaplan Professional is proud to partner with the Financial Advice Association Australia (FAAA), enabling individuals to integrate our FAS-approved Master of Financial Planning with the CFP® Certification Program, a gold standard for financial planners for over 30 years."
• B 3: "With a Master of Financial Planning on your resume, you’ll potentially open a wide range of career paths and stand out in a competitive field." (a career comparison, made twice)
• D 2: "It’s designed and developed in consultation with industry experts, and combines advanced technical rigour with practical and relevant performance-focused learning outcomes."

Griffith University

• C 2: "The CFP Certification Program is the globally recognised standard of excellence in financial planning."
• D 3: "Covering investments, taxation, risk management and retirement planning, you'll be prepared to deliver evidence-based financial advice in an evolving regulatory environment."
• E 3: "You'll explore behavioural finance to understand how clients make financial decisions and learn strategies to support better long-term outcomes."

Other universities

• RMIT, E 3: "Whether you become a financial planner, wealth manager, retirement planner, or financial consultant, your skills will be crucial in guiding clients toward financial security and growth."
• Curtin, E 3: "The trust-based and enduring relationships that they enjoy with clients are meaningful qualities of financial planning roles."
• Curtin, C 2: "Curtin’s accredited course is the only undergraduate program in Western Australia recognised by ASIC as meeting the educational requirements to practise as a financial planner."
• Charles Sturt, E 2: "The client has to be confident the planner is acting honestly and that any advice they receive is in their best interest."
• Deakin, D 2: "Financial planners are innovative and lateral in their thinking, they are up to date with the latest changes and they are committed to providing sound, independent and ethical advice."

The University of the Sunshine Coast, Western Sydney University and the University of Wollongong state accreditation only. Each scores 1 on D and 0 elsewhere.

9.3 The Value of Advice research

The FAAA cites one source for a client benefit: its annual Value of Advice research. The research hub says the series began in 2022. The 2024 and 2025 reports were read in full.

Who ran it. MYMAVINS ran the survey. Both reports describe it as an "independent research firm". The research hub also calls the work "independent research".

Who paid. Both reports say the FAAA commissioned the research. The reports also state that the FAAA is the marks licensing authority for the CFP marks in Australia. Neither report states the cost.

The sample.

Neither report states how many respondents were clients of a CFP professional. Neither report states how respondents were recruited, whether results were weighted, or any margin of error for the CFP comparisons.

What it measured. The FAAA Value of Advice Index has four components, each scored from 0 to 100:

• Quality of life: health, connection, capability, purpose and life satisfaction.
• Financial confidence: expected security, and the ability to reach goals and manage risk.
• Financial satisfaction: spending capability, risk management, sticking to a plan, and overall wealth.
• Experience: the value of working with an adviser, including financial gains. Only advised respondents answer it.

The CFP results. The reports publish a "CFP Professional Delta". For three components, it compares CFP clients with the unadvised. Only for Experience does it compare CFP clients with the clients of other advisers. The last column below subtracts the published scores, to show the gap between CFP clients and other advisers' clients.

The reports also state proportions. In 2025, "close to 7 in 10 of those advised by a CFP professional are highly satisfied with their overall wealth compared to less than 1 in 3 of those who are unadvised". In 2024, more than 4 in 5 CFP clients agreed their financial security had improved since their first advice. Close to 7 in 10 clients of other advisers agreed.

What this design can show. It shows what these respondents reported during those months. CFP clients in the sample gave higher ratings than other clients receiving advice and than those not receiving advice. The survey repeats this pattern over a two-year period.

What it cannot show. It cannot show that the CFP was the cause of the higher ratings. Four features of the study design stand in the way of this:

• No control. People who choose an adviser, and in particular a CFP, may differ in terms of wealth, age, income and attitude. The reports do not indicate that any adjustment was made for these factors.
• Self-reported data. Every metric is a self-assessment provided by the respondents themselves. Satisfaction with one's assets is not a measure of investment performance.
• A single point in time. Every survey is a cross-sectional study. "Improved since first advice" is a recollection, not a before-and-after measure.
• The comparison conflates two effects. A published Delta compared with those who did not receive advice combines the effect of having an adviser at all with any differences attributable to the CFP. The difference attributable solely to the CFP is the smaller figure in the last column.

How the FAAA uses it. The CFP certification page offers the research to future holders as a marketing asset: "Benefit from high public awareness of the CFP trademark, our Better off campaign and annual Value of Advice research". The "Better off" campaign page cites the 2024 report for its claim that advice brings "a higher quality of life" and "less financial stress".

9.4 The Value of Advice survey: the critique in full

Every statement below was checked against the four published editions on 12 October 2026. The 2022 edition was commissioned by the FPA, the FAAA's predecessor. The 2023 edition was part of the FPSB's global study. The 2024 and 2025 editions were commissioned by the FAAA. All four were run by the research firm MYMAVINS.

What the survey is

An online survey of Australians, which has been conducted annually since 2022. The 2024 survey involved 1,193 respondents, while the 2025 survey involved 1,226. Respondents had to be over 25 years of age and either earn more than $90,000 a year or have investable assets of more than $50,000. The 2022 survey focused on Australians aged 40 and over. Respondents are divided into three groups: those without financial advice, those advised by a CFP professional, and those advised by someone else. Each group is assessed using four indices: self-assessed quality of life, financial confidence, financial satisfaction and experiences with advice. The reports publish the group results and the differences between them.

What the reports say about the method

The reports specify the dates of the fieldwork, the number of respondents, the eligibility criteria, and the definitions of the terms "advised" and "not advised". The 2022 edition also states the group sizes: 212 people advised by a CFP professional, 194 people advised by another person, and 645 people who were not advised. These details are no longer provided in later editions.

What the reports do not say

1. How the respondents were recruited. None of the editions mention the panel, the source of the invitations or any quotas. Nor is there any information on this on the FAAA's research page. The reports do not indicate whether respondents were reached via advisers or via the FAAA's own channels. Nor do the reports mention whether this was the case for any of them. A reader cannot ascertain this.
2. How a respondent was identified as a client of a CFP professional. No edition specifies this. If the respondents answered the question, how did they know? If the respondent was recruited for the panel by a CFP adviser, this fact, that they were a client of a CFP adviser, could have been recorded at that stage. In the author's experience, few clients know whether their adviser holds the CFP certification, so this answer may not be reliable. No published Australian figures on the recognition of the designation were found.
3. How many CFP clients there were in 2023, 2024 and 2025.
4. Whether the results were weighted and according to which criteria. The FPSB's global study from 2023, which was conducted by the same company, states that the group of people receiving advice was "evenly weighted across generations". The Australian reports contain no information on this.
5. Any margin of error or confidence interval. The 2022 edition states that "all differences between advised and unadvised scores are statistically significant", without specifying a test, a sampling plan or a so-called confidence interval. These details are necessary to assess the validity of the survey.
6. The costs and who else had access to the questionnaire. Neither is specified. The questions themselves are not published.

The only verification that the published figures allow

The 2022 edition specifies the group sizes. Of the 406 respondents who had received advice, 212 (52%) stated that they had a CFP adviser. Around 3,200 of the approximately 15,000 advisers in Australia hold this qualification, which is roughly one in four. In the archive of advisers' websites used in this study, 26% of advisers hold this qualification. For 52% of the respondents receiving advice to be CFP clients, one of three conditions must apply. CFP professionals have twice as many clients as other advisers. Or the sample favours them in the selection process. Or the respondents are answering the question incorrectly. The report does not address this. Whichever explanation applies, the CFP comparison is based on a group whose composition is uncertain.

What the study design can and cannot show

The survey can reveal what respondents said about their own lives and finances during the months of fieldwork. It shows the same pattern in every edition: respondents who receive advice rate themselves higher than those who do not, and CFP clients, in turn, rate themselves even higher.

It cannot show that the advice or the CFP certification caused these ratings. Four features of the study design stand in the way of this.

• No control over who seeks advice. People who choose an adviser, particularly a CFP professional, differ in terms of wealth, age, income and outlook on life. Published research on financial advice concludes that, in a British survey, those receiving advice were £274,000 wealthier prior to receiving it. The reports do not mention whether such differences were taken into account.
• Self-reported data only. Every metric is a self-assessment provided by the respondent. "Satisfaction with overall wealth" is not a measure of wealth, and no financial outcomes were measured.
• A single point in time. Each issue is a cross-sectional study. "My financial security has improved since my first advice" is a recollection. And respondents who discontinued the advice because it went badly are counted as not having received advice.
• The published comparison conflates two effects. The headline "CFP Professional Delta" compares CFP clients with those who have not received advice. This conflates the effect of having an adviser at all with the differences attributable to the CFP. Compared with other clients receiving advice, the CFP difference is 5 to 8 points across three indices and 10 points on the fourth.

How the survey is used

The FAAA's "Better off" campaign relies on the 2024 report to support its claim that financial advice leads to "a higher quality of life" and "less financial stress". On the FAAA's page on CFP certification, the study is presented to prospective holders as a benefit of the certification. The campaign page states that its referrer element was funded by a marketing levy paid by CFP professionals. The FAAA is also the licensing authority for the CFP marks in Australia.

What this means

To the author's knowledge this is the only survey that measures the satisfaction of clients of advisers. The idea to measure financial advice outcomes such as satisfaction can be sound but this survey only publishes the total sample size but is curiously silent about any details that would support any statistical validity of the survey.

Hence this survey as published is not able to substantiate any of its claims and the urgent question arises whether these details are not disclosed because they would show that the survey is a marketing exercise and nothing else.

It is not a good sign for an industry if there is only one regular, large survey of advice quality and then this survey fails any quality standard commonly accepted for surveys except for the absolute number of respondents at over 1,000 each time.

If the argument that CFP advisers are better advisers can only be supported by a survey where only one quality indicator is published then this invites the question whether a CFP adviser is in any way a better adviser on average than their non-CFP peers are on average.

9.5 The degree providers

An entry counted when its title held "financial planning" or "financial advice" and a degree level: bachelor, master, graduate diploma, doctorate or honours. Graduate certificates, diplomas, single units and designations were left out. Each adviser counts once per provider. Provider names were merged by hand. Kaplan's four names became one, and so did RMIT's three. Finsia was merged with the Securities Institute of Australia, and two universities with their former names.

Repeated, for convenience:

• A returns: holders deliver better investment results.
• B better than other advisers: holders are better than non-holders.
• C the best: the gold standard, the highest designation, globally recognised.
• D quality without comparison: competence, ethics, rigour.
• E client outcomes other than returns: trust, confidence, peace of mind, better plans.

Kaplan's count is mostly graduate diplomas: 3,875 entries titled Graduate Diploma of Financial Planning, against 804 Master of Financial Planning. Charles Sturt, eleventh, stands in for Finsia and UniSA, which had no page to read.

Every provider page scored was written for students.

9.6 LRS and the aged care accreditation

LRS (Life Risk Specialist), 67 advisers on the register. The FPA and the AFA merged into the FAAA in April 2023. LRS was an FPA designation, not an AFA one. A 2011 FPA document reported 89 LRS holders. That document now returns an error page; it was read only as a search summary. Treasury's list of approved designations recognised LRS for study completed from 2009 to 2018. The FAAA therefore holds LRS by succession, as an inference. Its Specialist Designations page lists only the Aged Care Specialist designation. A search of the FAAA site found no LRS page. No page about LRS exists to score, and the designation appears closed to new entrants.

The aged care accreditation, 531 advisers in advisers.json. The register's free text names Aged Care Steps' Accredited Aged Care Professional in about 460 current entries. Eight entries name the FAAA Aged Care Specialist designation, and fourteen membership entries name the Accredited Aged Care Professional. Aged Care Steps issues the accreditation only to advisers on the Financial Advisers Register or in a Professional Year. The FAAA's designation is separate and requires the Aged Care Steps programme. The match to the register's AGED_CARE mark is by name only.

Aged Care Steps writes for advisers, not for their clients. It calls its programme "the gold standard in aged care advice training". Its client-outcome claims rest on two case studies of single adviser practices. One says that a team "has seen a significant improvement in their client outcomes". Neither case study reports a measure.

9.7 What the pattern means

The professional bodies make numerous claims regarding quality and reputation. However, they rarely claim that holders of these qualifications achieve better results for their clients. Only the FAAA offers evidence for a client benefit of such a qualification, in the form of a survey it commissioned. The survey assesses how respondents rate their own lives and financial situations; however, it does not measure investment performance.

The CFP claims also reach students through the degree providers. Kaplan and Griffith repeat the FAAA's "gold standard" and "standard of excellence" wording on their course pages.

9.8 Limits

Pages not fetched or not found.

• STEP global and STEP Australia (https://www.step.org/): a Cloudflare challenge in the browser, and HTTP 403 to direct requests. The challenge was not bypassed.
• University of South Australia: both degree addresses tried redirected to a 404 page.
• Finsia: finsia.com now redirects to https://www.cisi.org/. Kaplan's pages mention "Kaplan Professional or Finsia postgraduate qualification", which suggests the diploma moved to Kaplan (an inference).
• Deakin's Master of Financial Planning page: a search result titles it "Discontinued course". It was not opened.
• LRS: no page found (section 9.6).
• Western Sydney University's master's page redirected to a school page. A search result said the degree is suspended from the third quarter of 2025; this is unverified.
• University of Wollongong's course page redirected to an empty search page. Only its professional recognition page was read.

Substitutes.

• STEP Canada's consumer and career pages (https://step.ca/forthepublic and https://step.ca/tep-explained) stand in for STEP. They describe a branch in another country, not the body that admits Australian TEPs.
• The CFA Institute's employer page stands in for a consumer page. No page for retail investors about holders was found.
• The FAAA's CFP certification page is written for future holders. It is the page the FAAA uses to promote the CFP.
• Universities, Kaplan and Aged Care Steps write only for students or advisers. Their pages were read as the "why study" pages of the brief.

The "Better off" campaign and the CFP levy. The campaign promotes FAAA members to consumers, and cites the FAAA's own survey. Its page states: "Note that the referrer element of the Better off campaign references the CFP designation, as it has been funded from a marketing levy paid by CFP professionals in the past." CFP holders therefore paid for the campaign that promotes the designation.

10. The word "independent": a check of the wording

The independence figures above come from Jev's reading of each page. Because "independent" is a restricted word, a second check read every occurrence of the word stem "independen" with a fixed rule, and sorted them by what the word refers to. Its base is wider than the findings above: all 9,089 distinct archived pages on the 2,322 hosts of the same 4,277 advisers, where the model's run scored 8,967 pages on 2,220 sites. Shares in this part are of the 2,322 hosts. The headline: 1,138 of the 2,322 (49%) use some form of the word. Most of that is boilerplate: the compulsory statement that the adviser is not independent (27%) and the sentence that AFCA offers "fair and independent" dispute resolution (17%). 257 websites (11.1%) use wording that claims independence. Of these, 79 (3.4%) also state that they are not independent, usually in the Financial Services Guide. The other 178 (7.7%) claim and nowhere deny on the pages read; the directory's separate reading of the same websites found a denial on 28 more, which leaves 150 (6.5%). 66 websites (2.8%) use "independently owned" or a variant; Jev's wider class of 13% also counts wordings without the stem, such as "privately owned" and "not aligned with any bank". Whether a claim meets the legal test in section 923A cannot be read from a website. The search-engine reading, that the word is placed for Google rather than for readers, holds for about one claiming website in six: 27 of the 178 carry the claim in the page title, the meta description or the main heading.

10.1 How the check was done

• Pages. The check covers 9,089 archived pages from 2,322 websites and 4,277 advisers, which were accessed in August and September 2026. The raw text of the pages was analysed without scripts or styles, so titles, menus and footers are included. A second pass through the readable text (the text Jev read: the main text plus the footer) yields the same count of negations, to within one website.
• Rule. Each occurrence of the word stem "independen" was categorised into six categories based on its contextual words. A negation is present if the word stem is preceded by "not", "non" or "no", or if the fixed phrases "do not represent ourselves as independent, impartial or unbiased" and "lack of independence" are used. The client's objective is "financial independence". Ownership means "independently owned, operated, licensed, run or managed". A third party refers to any usage where the following word denotes another person: research, valuation, legal, professional, AFCA, ombudsman and so on. A claim is "independent financial adviser, advice, planning or firm", "an independent", "is, are or truly independent", "our independence". Everything else falls under "other uses".
• Limits. A rule reads words, not their meaning. The rule was not checked against a hand-read sample. On the claim-only websites of a first pass over the readable text, Jev's page-level judgement had scored about two thirds as claiming independence, so the rule and the model agree to that extent.
• The directory cross-check. The extraction carried out by the directory itself in September 2026 using gpt-4o-mini stored every sentence containing a restricted word, together with a class. This class is unreliable: 170 plain claims are recorded as "not independent" statements, and 1,432 stored statements contain no form of the word at all. Consequently, the class was not used. Instead, the saved sentences were re-evaluated according to the rule mentioned above. For 28 claim-only websites, the directory holds a negation sentence from the same URL that the study's archived copy does not contain, so the page changed between fetches or the stored sentence is a paraphrase.

10.2 What the word refers to

Shares are of all 2,322 websites and all 4,277 advisers. "Only category" means the stem is used in no other way on that website or by that adviser.

10.3 The variations

The eight most common variations in each category, by website. "Only variation" means no other variation appears on the website or for the adviser.

10.4 The legal background

Section 923A of the Corporations Act restricts the words independent, impartial and unbiased to advisers who receive no commissions or volume payments and have no ties to product issuers that could influence their advice. Since 2021 an adviser who is not independent must say so in the Financial Services Guide, in the same font as the rest of the text and not in a footnote, under section 942B(2)(fa) and ASIC Corporations (Disclosure of Lack of Independence) Instrument 2021/125. ASIC's INFO 291 recommends a bold heading such as "Not independent" or "Lack of independence". Since 10 July 2024 the same statement is required in website disclosure information where that replaces the guide. So the denial is the compulsory wording, and the 217 websites with a "lack of independence" heading are following ASIC's recommended form. The claim wording has no prescribed form and no compulsory check.

About

Designed and produced by Dr Christoph Schnelle, In Your Interest Financial Planning. In Your Interest Financial Planning Pty Ltd, ABN 28 094 300 464 is Authorised Rep. No 308161 of Fiduciary Duty Advisers Pty Ltd AFSL No 527434. Nothing on this page is advice to you or to your clients, and nothing on it is a recommendation of any product, any strategy or any adviser. Corrections are welcome and wanted – contact us.