Why We're Independent (or Not): Marketing the Approved Product List Honestly

11 October 2026·6 min read

Quick answer: "Independent" is a loaded word in financial advice, with specific legal conditions attached to who can actually use it, and most practices that aren't strictly independent still want to sound trustworthy without crossing that line. The honest approach is to describe your actual structure plainly — who licenses you, broadly how your approved product list is built, and what that does and doesn't mean for the client — rather than reaching for a label that doesn't fit. 🤍

Every practice wants to sound like it's on the client's side, which is exactly why "independent" gets used loosely in marketing far more often than it technically applies. The fix isn't to avoid the topic — it's to talk about your actual ownership and product-list structure so plainly that clients trust you more for having said it, not less. 💖

What most practices get wrong

Using "independent" as a vibe, not a status — implying independence through tone and styling while avoiding ever stating the actual licensing and ownership structure.
Treating the approved product list as something to hide — clients generally understand that advice happens within some structure; it's the silence around it that reads as evasive.
Overcorrecting into jargon — "we operate under an Australian Financial Services Licence with an approved product list" is accurate and tells a client nothing about what it means for them.
Assuming institutional ownership is automatically a bad story — it isn't, if you explain plainly what it does and doesn't restrict; the problem is pretending it doesn't exist.
Never revisiting the wording after a licensee or ownership change — the "about us" page quietly becomes inaccurate long after the actual structure has moved on.

Copy-paste honesty-first structure page (adapt to your actual position):

Who licenses us: [name your AFSL holder or that you hold your own licence, in one sentence]

How we choose what we recommend from: [plain description of your approved product list or research process, without naming specific products]

What that means for you: [one honest sentence — e.g. "we select from a researched list rather than the entire market" or "we're licensed independently and set our own research approach"]

What it doesn't mean: [one sentence addressing the obvious client worry directly — e.g. "it doesn't mean we're paid more to recommend one option over another"]

Where to check the detail: [reference to your Financial Services Guide, where the full disclosure lives]

Fill that in honestly and it reads less like a legal page and more like a practice that isn't afraid of the question. Here's how it looks for three different structures.

A self-licensed practice holding its own AFSL: they lead with that fact plainly — "we hold our own licence and set our own approved product list" — then explain in one line how the list gets built (an internal research committee, reviewed annually) rather than implying it means something broader than it does.

A 2-adviser practice authorised under a dealer group's licence: instead of avoiding the word "dealer group", they explain it as "we operate under [licensee]'s licence, which means our advice is researched and approved through their framework — we're still the ones sitting across the table and accountable for what we recommend to you."

A practice operating under a licensee with institutional ownership links: rather than burying this, their website states it in one calm sentence and then answers the obvious follow-up directly: "this doesn't change our legal duty to act in your best interests, and it doesn't mean we're paid differently based on what we recommend" — addressing the worry instead of hoping nobody asks.

How the approved product list actually works, in plain terms

An approved product list is simply the pool of products and platforms a licensee has researched and cleared for advisers under its licence to recommend from — it exists so advice is backed by due diligence, not built from a blank page every time. A genuinely independent licensee can set its own research criteria without ownership links back to a product provider; a licensee owned by or connected to an institution may have its own list shaped by that relationship, which is legally allowed but needs to be disclosed, generally through the Financial Services Guide. Neither structure is inherently better for a given client — what matters for trust is whether the practice names the structure honestly rather than leaving the client to assume either the best or the worst.

Please note: general information, not financial advice — check current official guidance before relying on it. This is a general explanation and not a description of any specific licensee or product.

💡 Heads up: never use the word "independent" on your marketing unless your licensing position actually meets the specific legal conditions attached to that word — if it doesn't, describe your structure plainly instead; "transparent about how we're licensed" is a trust signal you're always allowed to claim.

Mistakes to avoid

Naming specific licensees or products on a public marketing page — keep that level of detail in your Financial Services Guide, where it belongs, and keep the website general.
Implying ownership structure affects your legal duty to the client — it doesn't change your best-interests obligation, and saying otherwise (in either direction) overstates the point.
Writing the honesty page once and never updating it — a licensee change or ownership change makes this page one of the first things to check, not an afterthought.
Letting sales language creep back in — "truly independent advice you can trust" is a claim, not a description; stick to what's actually true.

Frequently asked questions

Can any financial planning practice call itself independent?

No — the term carries specific conditions in this industry around licensing, remuneration and ownership, and using it without meeting those conditions is a compliance risk, not just a marketing choice. If there's any doubt, describe the actual structure instead of reaching for the label.

Does institutional ownership mean a practice gives worse advice?

Not necessarily — ownership structure and advice quality aren't the same thing, and plenty of well-regarded practices operate under licensees with institutional links. The honest nuance is that it can shape the shelf a recommendation is chosen from, which is exactly why disclosing it plainly matters more than the ownership structure itself.

Where should the detailed disclosure actually live if not on the marketing pages?

Your Financial Services Guide is the proper home for the specific detail — who your licensee is, how remuneration works, and the mechanics of your approved product list. The website's job is to point clients there honestly and in plain language, not to replace it.

Will being this transparent put clients off before they even book a meeting?

It's a reasonable worry, but in practice the opposite tends to be more common — vague "about us" pages read as evasive to savvier prospective clients, while a plain, confident explanation of your structure tends to read as a practice with nothing to hide. It won't suit every brand voice, but it rarely costs trust.

Keep reading 🤍

Written by

Kate, founder of Chronically Online

I help Gold Coast and Brisbane businesses grow with branding, websites and marketing that actually works.

Work with me ✦