FPC002B Ethics and Professionalism in Financial Advice
Students looking for academic guidance across different subjects can explore best assignment help Australia for support with research, assignment structure and subject-related concepts.
Assignment 2 Answer Template
Question 1
(a) 1.1 Opportunities in Digital Advice in Financial Planning
The world is going digital as there are many domains that are integrating digital assistance and systems into their system. The use of digital advice platforms, commonly known as robo-advisers, has steadily risen in the financial planning profession over the past few years (Anshari, Almunawar & Masri, 2022). These platforms undergo computer programmes and algorithms to provide investment advice to clients. Digital advice expansion is connected to a number of reasons (McGrath & Walker, 2023). To begin with, online tools appeal to many clients, and particularly younger clients are more likely to use them due to ease of use because of speed, and it may be significantly less expensive than an in-face meeting with a financial adviser. Second, the use of digital services increased as more people took financial advice more often because only physical meetings were restricted due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
According to research conducted by the industry reports, it is projected that digital advice would keep on increasing in the coming decade (Hentzen et al. 2022). The digital solutions are called by more financial firms, as this may be a primary solution offered by these firms or the hybrid models of human advisers and digital practices. Indeed, according to some of the reports that exist around the world, the number of assets that robo-advisers are dealing with could increase in the coming years by some digits in trillions of dollars (Bruhn & Asher, 2021). Growth in this sector may not be very rapid in Australia as it is in the United States or Europe, however in the local market it is evolving well owing to the encouragement of the regulations that are becoming clearer and the clients displaying better confidence in the technology. In the case of SilverOaks, this trend implies that the inclusion of DigiP has the potential to enable the business to remain competitive.
1.2 Example of two of digital advice providers
To gain a clearer insight into how DigiP could be useful, it is possible to consider an example of existing sources of digital advice. Among the two potential providers that can apply to SilverOaks are Stockspot, and Ignition Advice.
Stockspot is also among the pioneer and most common robo-adviser in Australia. It provides clients with online investment portfolios that prefer using lower and easy methods to invest. The site operates by posing questions to clients, where they are expected to answer questions concerning their objectives, financial status and their risk tolerance (Tiron, Rodgers & Deliu, 2025). Depending on these responses, it implies an investment portfolio, which is normally comprised of exchange-traded funds (ETFs) (Fanto, 2021). Stockspot fees are cheaper than human-advisers and targets the younger generation who might not be able to invest much yet seek the advice of professionals. This model might resemble DigiP since SilverOaks also desires to focus on the customers who want to invest less than $150,000.
Another type of digital advice is Ignition Advice which has been utilized by the large financial institutions in Australia and abroad. Unlike direct-to-consumer model Stockspot, Ignition is frequently used as a white-label solution, i.e. a financial advice business can branded it and in-house, which it can use as part of its offering. Ignition is an advice provider whose main aim is to assist advisers in providing digital advice to clients, who in most cases incorporate it in a hybrid type of advice model (Ramasastry, 2021). This would be beneficial to SilverOaks since the DigiP can be integrated under its name and still provide the clients with the advantages of using digital tools. Ignition also enables advisers to also intervene in cases where a client has very complex conditions, that cannot be handled by digital-only solutions, which aligns with what Marilena claims the DigiP can and should refer a client to human advisers where necessary.
(b) 1.3 DigiP Integration SWOT Analysis
A SWOT analysis examines opportunities, strengths and weaknesses and threats of a business decision.
| Strengths | Weaknesses |
|---|---|
| The advantage of DigiP is that it would assist SilverOaks to retain younger clients using technology (Gerlach and Lutz, 2021). These clients are willing to have investment advice although they are not yet ready to pay full financial advice at this stage (Murdock et al. 2022). SilverOaks can also be more efficient with counsellors aiming at the complex cases as the routine investment tasks can be addressed with the assistance of DigiP. | One of the weaknesses is that DigiP may not be well-informed in the situation of every client (Mullins, Holland & Cunneen, 2021). It does not have the appropriate details that human advisers handle such as family life, taxation and emotions (Odeh, 2024). Another sign of weakness is that certain advisers, such as Paresh fear that the human advice that is provided by DigiP might decrease such a need and thus, members of the team may stand-opposed to the change. |
| Opportunities | Threats |
| Use of DigiP has big opportunities. One of them is the opportunity to appeal to a new population, in particular, younger investors that are fond of digital tools and can become long-term customers (Pham et al. 2024). The other opportunity is business expansion, since silveroaks would be in a position to provide DigiP to more more clients without necessarily increasing the number of human advisers in the near future. | The threat that it may also be joined by competitors using digital advice is that, in case SilverOaks does not move at a fast pace, they can be outgunned (Paschal, 2023). Technology risk is yet another kind of risk that can affect the reputation of SilverOaks, in case of failures or poor advice that DigiP provides. |
1.3.1 Risk Mitigation Strategies
To deal with the weaknesses, SilverOaks might transform DigiP into a hybrid model where the clients are always expected to be given an option of talking to a human adviser whose expertise is required in dealing with complex issues. In this manner, DigiP does not diminish advisers; rather it assists and complements them (Zhang, 2024). To mitigate the external threats, SilverOaks may invest in robust compliance, cybersecurity, and monitoring systems; this will minimise chances of system outages or damage to the client.
(c) 1.4 AFS Licence Implications
DigiP will have significant implications on the licence of SilverOaks as an Australian Financial Services (AFS) provider in case it incorporates it in its services. ASIC in their Regulatory Guide 255 stipulates that digital financial advice businesses should engage the same legal criteria consider as human advisers (Neilson, 2024). This implies that Silveroaks will need to make sure that the advice in DigiP provides in good faith meets the interests of the client, in a manner suitable to them and will not border and effect their detriment.
The compliance and monitoring of DigiP at a self-licensed practice such as SilverOaks would be the concern of SilverOaks (Brüggen et al. 2025). This also involves ensuring that recording of the algorithms are correct, that record keeping has been done correctly and that there is a mechanism to review and update the system (Bhatia et al. 2022). The company would also have to train advisers and personnel on the operation of DigiP, to know how to answer any queries of a client and monitor its usage.
1.5 Conclusion
Digital financial advice market is creating steady growth both in Australia and on a global scale. The clients, more than it earlier was among the younger ones, are willing to use digital tools to handle their investments. This trend can be used to the advantage of SilverOaks by implementing the new technology of introducing DigiP which might enhance the competitiveness and efficiency of the practice. Cases with Stockspot and Ignition Advice demonstrate that digital advice can be in the form of a low-cost, independent service or row, subsidizing the advisers.
The SWOT analysis will point out the opportunities or the potential of the SWOT analysis like friendship of attracting new clients and the threats in terms of missing the personal details or occurrence of technology failures. Nevertheless, these risks are minimized in case of hybrid models and robust systems of compliance. And lastly, SilverOaks should attend to making sure that DigiP complies with all AFS licence requirements in ASIC RG 255 and that means close supervision, documentation, and testing.
Students exploring financial advice, adviser responsibilities and professional standards can also find relevant academic support through Financial Planning Assignment Help.
Question 2
(a) 2.1 Five Traits of Professions by Greenwood
Essentially, sociologist Ernest Greenwood identified five characteristics that comprise a profession: (1) specialised knowledge, (2) community sanction, (3) ethical codes, (4) professional culture and (5) service orientation. In the way that the human advisers of SilverOaks can be compared to the ones of DigiP, they are similar and different at the same time.
2.1.1 Specialised Knowledge
Human advisers acquire knowledge by study, training and experience. Expert power to analyze technical skills and spare emotional cognition about clients can be combined. DigiP, however, applies algorithms as constructed by programmers and financiers. They both provide knowledge, only that differently. Their similarity is that they both seek to provide expert-based financial advice. The attitude is that humans make commitments and can make adaptation in bizarre situations, whereas, with DigiP, it is programmed and not designed to make adult alterations.
2.1.2 Community Sanction
It is through licensing and regulation of professions that preference and acceptability is acknowledged by society. SilverOaks has human advisers who are registered by the Australian rules to adhere to the law. DigiP would also level approval, since to conduct digital advice platforms ASIC will mandate the use of an AFS licence. The difference is that the two are similar since they have to be authorised to offer advice. The difference lies in that human beings obtain sanction by means of personal qualification, whereas DigiP obtains it by verification and licensing of the business.
2.1.3 Ethical Codes
The advisers are required to observe Financial Planners and Advisers Code of Ethics 2019. This involves service of the best interests of clients as well as fairness and honesty. The system of DigiP is neutral in terms of values and personal ethics. Nevertheless, those people who create and supervise DigiP should ensure that it is ethical. The difference resembles that both have to deal with ethical expectations. The distinction lies in the fact that it is human people who employ ethics in a subjective reasoning, and DigiP depends on coding and control to remain ethical.
2.1.4 Professional Culture
The culture of human advisers is created through training, experience and professional network. They have values in common like integrity and client focus. There is no culture in DigiP in human sense, but culture of SilverOaks will guide the way of using and monitoring DigiP. Their similarity is that both occupy the same business environment. What is that culture is acquired instinctively in the process of human interaction and must be engineered into DigiP by its designers and users.
2.1.5 Service Orientation
Financial advice is primarily there to serve clients and make them financially well. Human advisers demonstrate servitude in terms of listening, explaining and even assisting clients emotionally and financial issues. Speed, efficiency and low cost are the service that DigiP offers. The similarity is that both have the aim of serving clients. The distinction is that the emotional and personal touch of service may be lost during DigiP, and the human being will be able to modify the service to the feelings and situations in life of a client.
To conclude, DigiP resembles human advisers, who also do not possess all the aspects of humanness in terms of knowledge, ethivety, and service. This demonstrates why DigiP is to be seen as an adjunct, as opposed to a complete alternative to human guidance.
(b) 2.2 Litigation and Tone SilverOaks Advisers show with biases
Prejudices are decision-making shortcuts or decision-making errors jotted down in the mind. Some of the advisers at SilverOaks display prejudices in regard to DigiP in the case study. Four main ones are as follows.
- Status Quo Bias (Paresh): Paresh is worried that DigiP will take the place of the human advisor and decrease the need in personal advice. His attitude is to maintain things as they are instead of being open to change. This is status quo bias - it is better to remain in the existing system as it is safer.
- Overconfidence Bias (Tamlyn): Tamlyn believes with a lot of confidence that DigiP will fit so well and even tells her that its recommendation will be inerrant under her watch. This is too much belief in one having control or prescient forecasts even in the face of risk.
- Automation Bias (Steve): Steve intends to project his insurance clients to DigiP to seek their advise on investing funds without considering whether it is the right move or not. This is automation bias - overreliance on a system or the technology and not doubting what it says is right.
- Confirmation Bias (Marilena): Marilena is receptive to DigiP due to similarity of her opinion that younger clients such as herself are seeking digital solutions. She mostly believes in the support of facts and she tends to be risk-ignoring. This is confirmation bias that is wanting the concentration in the information that affirms an existing opinion.
These assumptions demonstrate the influence of individual views, fears and preferences on the opinion of the advisers. It is significant to recognize them because SilverOaks will have a balanced and fair decision on DigiP.
(c) 2.3 Ethical Theories in the application of DigiP
It can be checked using two ethical approaches at the question of whether it is ethical that SilverOaks should integrate DigiP; some deontological and teleological (utilitarian) ethics.
2.3.1 Deontological Ethics
Deontological ethics are concerned with duty and rules. It takes the question as to whether something is good or bad according to principles, not the consequences. The question that SilverOaks needs to consider, within this perspective, is whether the incorporation of DigiP complies with its obligation to clients, which include acting in their best interests, being honest and competence.
And when the design of DigiP and its surveillance wisely guided, it can fulfill these responsibilities by giving sound advice, which is fair, cheap, and transparent. However, as long as DigiP is left uncontrolled and does not take crucial details about the clients, then, it might violate the obligations and thus be immoral. According to deontological perspective, the only thing that will make DigiP ethical is when SilverOaks provides hale and balance and client protection.
2.3.2 The Teleological (Utilitarian) Ethics
Teleological ethics, which is associated with utilitarianism, examines outcomes. An ethical action that is taken is one that gives maximum good to most. SilverOaks has to answer the question whether DigiP will do more people better.
On the upside, cheaper, more accessible and younger clients would have access to advice that would have been out of reach. This makes it beneficial more.
On the down side, in the case of DigiP, the advice could be overly simple or simply not fitting some clients, and this may hurt individuals even though the majority of its clients will be benefited.
In a teleological perspective, it is possible that DigiP is ethical provided that it assists most of the clients to take good advice, but that it is administered in a fashion that would minimize harm to vulnerable clients.
2.3.3 Combined Reflection
The two theories make helpful contributions. Deontology underlines duties and obligations whereas, teleology underlines outcomes. Combined, this implies that DigiP can be ethical provided that SilverOaks, in its design, responsibility, and attention, is mindful and that human advisors can be available when the need is complicated.
2.4 Conclusion
By using the five traits of Greenwood to compare DigiP with human advisers, one can believe that both have certain common objectives yet are different in the depth of service, ethical perspective, and culture. DigiP is able to offer efficiency and reach but human advisers tend to offer emotional comprehension and judgment in a flexible way.
Status quo bias, overconfidence bias, automation bias, and confirmation bias are the biases of the advisers and explain why their opinion about DigiP is not entirely objective. The identification of these biases aids the business to invest into facts in making decisions and not fear of their truth or the opportunistic belief.
Using ethical theories, it is possible to demonstrate that DigiP may be ethical in case it considers responsibilities (deontological) and maximizes outcomes of a large number of clients (teleological). Nevertheless, it has to be closely monitored, adherent, and coupled with human control.
That is in plain terms, DigiP itself is neither good nor bad. It is a tool. It can be ethical or not, it is a question of how SilverOaks will utilize it. When well applied, it can assist the clients and advisers, as well as the success of the business over a long period.
Question 3
(a) 3.1 The Behaviour of Steve and Code done upon him
A document that stipulates values and standards to be followed by all advisers is Financial Planners and Advice code of Ethics 2019. This is geared towards giving the clients fair and just treatment at all times. When analysing the behaviour of the character of Steve in SilverOaks case, a plain problem is evident.
3.1.1 Breach of a Value
One of the five values of the Code is trust worthiness. This means that advisers are supposed to act in a way that makes them build a trust and a wall to their clients. Only without making a proper determination as to whether they are the right client of DigiP has Steve been referring his loyal clients only to DigiP to obtain investment advice. By so doing, he is not doing exactly in their best interest. He is inclined to suspect that clients who want only insurance advice would not want a more comprehensive advice (Akinrinola et al. 2024). Nevertheless, this assumption can turn out to be wrong since some of those clients could require a full-fledged financial consultancy. Steve might wind up advising his clients half-baked or indeed unsuitably against his part contravening their trust in urging them to DigiP half-bakedly and without reading names to their DigiP.
3.1.2 Breach of a Standard
Steves actions also breach the Standard 2 of the code that authoritatively sounds that the advisers also holds fiduciary duties of the Delta best interest of individual clients. Instead of trying to establish whether his insurance clients are in a position to satisfy other needs, Steve simply passes them to DigiP in order to save on time (Richards, Ahmed & Bruce, 2022). This ultimately reasons out the clients as the best, since DigiP would have not realised certain critical information that would have been realised by a human adviser. An example can be provided to use, a customer asking to be insured may have outstanding debts, retirement plans or even family obligations to meet. Steve is not considering these factors which has been against ethical responsibility found under Standard 2.
In conclusion, it will be possible to state that the Code is breached in a few different ways because Steve fails to act in the best interests and he fails to keep the trust of the clients (Svetlova, 2022). His DigiP utilisation is improper exercise of judgment, and is an undermining of the morality of his cause.
(b) 3.2 DigiP and Five Values of the Code
The code of Ethics they contain, comprise of five values: Trustworthiness, Competence, Honesty, Fairness and Diligence. SilverOaks must consider each of these values in order to notice, whether DigiP can fit these values.
3.2.1 Trustworthiness
Credibility suggests that the clients are in need of knowing that what advice they are being given is reasonable and safe. DigiP can help with trust as usual unbiased and stable. It does not provoke fatigue or any feelings and it does not discriminate all clients in the way the human beings do. However, undermining trust could as well abolish DigiP in the sense that clients are considered to be impersonal or unsuitable enough in its suggestion (McGrath & Walker, 2023). In this sense, therefore, DigiP is not fully incompatible with trust and this would continue to be the case provided that it is well supervised by SilverOaks who can and will inform its clients on how it is operating.
3.2.2 Competence
The competence relates to the required skills uprightness and knowledge to give out advice. DigiP can prove its competence by guiding the clients using elaborate algorithms and the updated financial information. It can process information faster which may take the human being a similar time to analyse it (Sivasubramaniam et al. 2021). In contrast, DigiP himself cannot think outside the datum. The latter cannot be empathetic and recognize certain abnormal conditions that are not compatible with its program. Simply put this would mean that DigiP would perform better in the technical fields but may fail on improved personal scrutiny.
3.2.3 Honesty
Honesty assumes that it is fully candid to the customers. It is not that DigiP lies but the way it is being marketed may come to play with truth and disclosures. It would be wrong to tell the clients that DigiP would be an ideal solution to the problem because SilverOaks cannot know that. Speaking of sincerity, this also needs to be limited in line with the communication to the customer, such as, the reasoning that the DigiP should not be intended to work in complex requirements but only simple requirements. DigiP can adjust to honesty although SilverOaks informs him of the truth about the deal. Otherwise it may result in the incorrect understanding of clients which could be a breach of the Code.
3.2.4 Fairness
Fair play implies the non prejudice or equality towards all the clients. DigiP in this aspect has an advantage, because its algorithms are equally good in giving advice irrespective of the client at hand. It does not discriminate the customers based on appearance, age, and wealth (Rialdy et al. 2023). However, justice can be lost when the algorithm is not formulated with much care and produces bias results like preference to a certain type on investments. Fair play inter alia, it cannot be seen that it does not compel SilverOaks to carry the tests of DigiP at irregular intervals so as to see that its recommendations is not being done so as to support the opinion it holds.
3.2.5 Diligence
Diligence is provision of attentive, prompt and mindful counsel. On the one hand, information is processed rapidly, and the structural review of information is habitual, so DigiP is in itself healthy. But with the hard work, one also has to be keen observing the general state of the client. The information not included in the questionnaire by DigiP can be disregarded. Absence of the human review may be having loopholes in the advice. So DigiP supports diligence to a partial degree but cannot realize this value by itself.
In sum, DigiP would agree with the values in the Code in some respects and not in all. Its advantages are fairness, consistency and speed. The downsides of it are lack of empathy, potential limitation of advice, and weak transparency (Arthur & Owen, 2023). In this way, in order to ensure that the values are perfectly aligned, SilverOaks must hire DigiP, with human advisers that can help it work correctly.
(c) 3.3. Standard 12 and Adviser Obligations In Case DigiP Fails
The Code standard 12 continues by indicating that advisers are supposed to embrace and promote the field ethics. This means that they have to undertake the action when the systems or other employees fail to perform the ethical requirements.
3.3.1 Possible Malfunction
In the absence of proper checks about the risk profile, DigiP would be giving advice that would not favour the client. It can, as an example, recommend a high level of riskiness in a portfolio to a risk averse investor, or recommend investment when the investment clients funds would be wiser used to pay off the debt. The consequence of their effects can lead to serious economic losses.
3.3.2 Adviser Response
SilverOaks advisers must step in immediately in the case of such a development. They should:
- Identify an issue: Be aware of those instances when the client does not seem to comply with the recommendation of DigiP.
- Stop Harm: Per participants mitigate the harm of their directive.
- Report the Issue: Report is it required by the met managers and regulators.
- Fix the Advice: Counsell the affected clients.
By this, Standard 12 is followed because the advisers show that they place into consideration the ethics of the profession even on a circumstance that was caused by technology.
3.3.3 Recommended Triage or filter Process
To reduce the risks, SilverOaks should set up a triage / filter system in DigiP. This would ensure that the clients were able to pursue the digital advice provided alone unless the situation was too simple. Some steps could include:
- First Questionnaire: DigiP will have to ask an initial few but general queries on income, debts, family, goals and the risk tolerance.
- Complexity Filter: DigiP is to pause the process upon the provision of some evidence that the client is in complex need (ragging on multiple debts, tax or retirement planning considerations, and the like).
- Referral System: DigiP should recommend that the client rendezvous human adviser at this point and not through any additional online communication.
- Continued Review: SilverOaks advisers to regularly review the process by which DigiP filters its clients and report on the same where appropriate.
3.4 Conclusion
The act of Steve is one symbol of how such advisers do not handle the expected ethical standard in the profession. By referring the clients to DigiP before consulting them, he threatens the integrity of the Code of ethics with respect to trust and acting at the best interest of the clients. This gives the reality that in the application of technology supervision and accountability can never be compromised.
This balance will protect customers, jeopardize reputations of profession and make it possible to establish that in-technology use is a responsible practice.
This implies that, in simplistic terms, ethics cannot be replaced by DigiP in spite of the fact that it may be of use to some extent. Human advisers are custodians of trust that they bear only to their clients and to this end that SilverOaks should devise mechanisms that make DigiP a safe tool and not a dangerous bypass.
References
Journals
- Akinrinola, O., Okoye, C. C., Ofodile, O. C., & Ugochukwu, C. E. (2024). Navigating and reviewing ethical dilemmas in AI development: Strategies for transparency, fairness, and accountability. GSC Advanced Research and Reviews, 18(3), 050-058. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6a1f/8f8247574b831f3f2ea97f8ca14415ed255.pdf
- Anshari, M., Almunawar, M.N. & Masri, M. (2022). Digital twin: Financial technology’s next frontier of robo-advisor. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 15(4), p.163. Retrieved from https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/15/4/163
- Arthur, K.N.A. & Owen, R. (2022). A micro-ethnographic study of big data-based innovation in the financial services sector: Governance, ethics and organisational practices. In Business and the ethical implications of technology (pp. 57-69). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10551-019-04203-x.pdf
- Bhatia, A., Chandani, A., Divekar, R., Mehta, M. and Vijay, N. (2022). Digital innovation in wealth management landscape: the moderating role of robo advisors in behavioural biases and investment decision-making. International Journal of Innovation Science, 14(3/4), pp.693-712. Retrieved from https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IJIS-10-2020-0245/full/html
- Brüggen, L., Gianni, R., de Haan, F., Hogreve, J., Meacham, D., Post, T. & van der Werf, M. (2025). AI-Based Financial Advice: An Ethical Discourse on AI-Based Financial Advice and Ethical Reflection Framework. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, p.07439156241302279. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/07439156241302279
- Bruhn, A. & Asher, A. (2021). The primacy of ethics in the provision of financial advice. Accounting & Finance, 61(2), pp.3305-3327. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/am-pdf/10.1111/acfi.12703
- Fanto, J.A. (2021). The Professionalization of Compliance: Its Progress, Impediments, and Outcomes. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy, 35, p.183. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm?abstractid=3678677
- Gerlach, J.M. and Lutz, J.K. (2021). Digital financial advice solutions–Evidence on factors affecting the future usage intention and the moderating effect of experience. Journal of Economics and Business, 117, p.106009. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148619521000278
- Hentzen, J.K., Hoffmann, A., Dolan, R. & Pala, E. (2022). Artificial intelligence in customer-facing financial services: a systematic literature review and agenda for future research. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 40(6), pp.1299-1336. Retrieved from https://arvidhoffmann.nl/Hentzen%20et%20al.%202021%20IJBM.pdf
- McGrath, J. & Walker, C. (2023). Regulating ethics in financial services: Engaging industry to achieve regulatory objectives. Regulation & Governance, 17(3), pp.791-809. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/rego.12482
- Mullins, M., Holland, C.P. & Cunneen, M. (2021). Creating ethics guidelines for artificial intelligence and big data analytics customers: The case of the consumer European insurance market. Patterns, 2(10). Retrieved from https://www.cell.com/patterns/pdf/S2666-3899(21)00224-5.pdf
- Murdock, M., Richie, N., Sackley, W. & White, H. (2022). Professional competence and business ethics. Journal of Financial Crime, 29(1), pp.215-232. Retrieved from https://www.emerald.com/jfc/article/29/1/215/221800
- Neilson, B. (2024). Addressing Barriers To Accessing Financial Advice.
