The phrase Independent Financial Adviser (IFA) is used to describe an adviser who can (1) Source from at least 4 product manufacturers (2) Recommend according to reasonable basis and (3) Objective in recommendations. (4) Recommendation must not be because of favourable commission. Point #1 and #3 do not necessarily exists in all advisers although point #2 is a mandatory requirement for all advisers to fullfill. However, some people thinks of IFA as quite something else:

1. Some people thinks that IFAs are not entited to earn a decent salary. For some strange reason, they feel angry when they get to know that IFA must also feed their family because of the "conflict in interest". I find this view rather perverse.
2. Some people thinks that IFA must know everything in the entire world. Regulations do not call for an IFA to be omniscient. However there are regulation pertaining to Training & Competency (T&C). Being competent and omniscient are not the same thing.
3. Some people thinks that IFA must carry products from all over the world. Regulations only called for 4 product providers although all IFAs in Singapore carry many more times this number.
4. Others thinks that IFAs are just insurance agents. The world has changed, for me doing insurance is only one area, I also do investments like unit trusts, ETFs, structured notes, hedge funds. I also do "non-conventional" matters like writing for financial magazines to promote financial literacy.

This being said, some practices by IFAs are really not helping the industry. For example, I have heard of malpractices like churning of unit trusts. This really pull all the good and bad sheeps down the drain.