Speaker 1: This is Outspoken. The podcast is not afraid to say
Speaker 1: exactly what you're thinking. Our names are Amy Kate and
Speaker 1: Sophie Torba. We're identical triplets, but we often don't have
Speaker 1: identical opinions, so sometimes things can get heated. Outspoken covers
Speaker 1: all things reality TV, influencers, entertainment and issues facing women.
Speaker 2: That is so fetch Thank you.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to another episode of Outspoken. It's a very
Speaker 1: happy Monday here as it's a public holiday in South Australia.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry for those states that are missing out. We're
Speaker 1: obviously pre recording this episode because when you're listening to this,
Speaker 1: Sophie will be on holiday in Marion Bay with their
Speaker 1: in laws.
Speaker 2: That's right.
Speaker 1: We're spending a week there, which I mean I'm feeling
Speaker 1: a bit a bit funny about because i haven't had
Speaker 1: a week off in so long.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I will be bringing my laptop with me, Amy mind you, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I know, because I'm going to be holding down the
Speaker 1: fort Hula Media by myself.
Speaker 2: Does that mean gone? Does that mean it's just going
Speaker 2: to be your me doing the podcast.
Speaker 1: I'm going to bring a microphone with me, so I
Speaker 1: mean it gives me something to do because apparently there
Speaker 1: is a sweet fa to do with Marion Bay. I
Speaker 1: was going to say, because I mean, I've lived in
Speaker 1: South Australia my whole life except the year in Melbourne,
Speaker 1: and I've never even heard of Marion Bay or anything
Speaker 1: to do with.
Speaker 2: What you do there. It's nearly your peninsula.
Speaker 1: Apparently there's a big beautiful national park there. Apparently Brandon
Speaker 1: is going to teach me how to use my camera
Speaker 1: that you got me for Christmas. So we're also going
Speaker 1: to have a Christmas in.
Speaker 2: June night so that should be fun. Wow. Okay, well
Speaker 2: what are you going to do without me? Amy?
Speaker 1: And Oh I'm just going to get shit. I'm just
Speaker 1: going to get a lot of work done. I'm actually
Speaker 1: kind of looking forward to it a little bit because
Speaker 1: oh thanks, Well, no, like I'll miss you. Maybe we
Speaker 1: can have some quality time to maybe just think you
Speaker 1: guys need it. Yeah, well, Amy, you have a colleague
Speaker 1: that's gone viral on tiktop. Yeah so a former colleague.
Speaker 1: So it's not Sophie. No, no, it's quite hilarious. One
Speaker 1: of my friends messaged me a TikTok video and it's
Speaker 1: over Channel seven reporter doing a report down in the snow,
Speaker 1: so he was doing a bit of a weather report.
Speaker 2: And it's so humorous.
Speaker 1: Because I met him when I was on my cadet
Speaker 1: ship and he didn't get the cadet ship. He actually
Speaker 1: got beaten out, but he did producing work at seven
Speaker 1: And I was really surprised by this because he is
Speaker 1: a nice looking guy. I do remember that there will
Speaker 1: quite chatter about him because you know, he was pretty
Speaker 1: good looking. Yeah, so he does post some modeling type
Speaker 1: photos on his Instagram.
Speaker 2: And the interesting thing is he is such a hard worker.
Speaker 1: He's been slogging his guts out working at Sunrise, doing
Speaker 1: all this stuff and trying to get his foot in
Speaker 1: the door for a full time reporting job. And what's
Speaker 1: happened is a young girl has been watching the news
Speaker 1: randomly and she's discovered him reporting on the weather and
Speaker 1: she has gone to her TikTok and posted a video
Speaker 1: of him zooming up with this dreamy music and said
Speaker 1: everyone needs to start watching the news.
Speaker 2: This clip has been viewed nearly half a million times.
Speaker 1: I can just imagine this happening with us back in
Speaker 1: the day, because Dad used to watch the news like
Speaker 1: literally NonStop. It would be ten news than seven today tonight.
Speaker 1: I could imagine seeing some hot person on there and
Speaker 1: you're enjoying the eye canny back in the day.
Speaker 2: Maybe I shouldn't say.
Speaker 1: It's oh, Matt dor Matt Doran. He was a reason
Speaker 1: to watch the news as well. If TikTok was around
Speaker 1: then I feel like he would have featured heavily on there.
Speaker 1: I do remember we were so disappointed because we all
Speaker 1: started working at Channel ten rolling the auto Q and
Speaker 1: doing a bit of the weather script and I think
Speaker 1: he was either there for like five minutes whilst we
Speaker 1: were there and then left to Melbourne. I remember we
Speaker 1: were all devastated. Well, this guy, he has been featured
Speaker 1: on the Daily Mail. His Instagram following last time I looked,
Speaker 1: it's gone up by about seven thousand, and I've heard
Speaker 1: that he might be now getting a full time job
Speaker 1: because of this.
Speaker 2: Is that not the power of TikTok?
Speaker 1: Though? This guy's been slogging his guts out for like
Speaker 1: six years in the background and now he's featured once
Speaker 1: on TikTok and that's it.
Speaker 2: Good on him? I know.
Speaker 1: I'm actually really happy for looking at it from the
Speaker 1: other perspective. Can you imagine if some guy started like
Speaker 1: sort of perving on some weather presenter and it just
Speaker 1: went off and then they got it.
Speaker 2: Oh, why do you think some weather presenters. I was
Speaker 2: just thinking about Beg Judd.
Speaker 1: No, not Beg Judd, but like there is somebody she
Speaker 1: she she got exposure from wearing her red dress. So
Speaker 1: I suppose it's kind of a similar situation where she's
Speaker 1: been spotted by looking gorgeous. So the television industry is
Speaker 1: usually run by old men who usually pick out young
Speaker 1: women that they have the hotspot or that are attractive.
Speaker 1: To be honest, I'm calling it. I think I should
Speaker 1: become a news director because I spotted this guy's potential
Speaker 1: five years ago.
Speaker 2: I said he would make a.
Speaker 1: Great reporter on the news. I was shocked he didn't
Speaker 1: get the Sydney gig, and here he is now starring
Speaker 1: all across the Daily Mail.
Speaker 3: Regina George is flawless.
Speaker 1: She has too Fendi press and it's not as.
Speaker 3: I hear her hare's insured for ten thousand dollars.
Speaker 1: A new breed of influencer is dominating the social media world.
Speaker 1: Finance influencers, known as influencers, are becoming a hot commodity
Speaker 1: for fine financial brands wanting exposure. However, concerns have been
Speaker 1: raised over the unlicensed advice being provided by unqualified influencers.
Speaker 1: This week, a row between license and unlicensed Australian finance
Speaker 1: influences reached fever pitch when two upcoming unlicensed influencers accuse
Speaker 1: financial advisor Victoria Divine of a lack of disclosure that
Speaker 1: She's on the Money. Founder was criticized on Instagram and
Speaker 1: then in The Australian Financial Review for a partnership with
Speaker 1: investing app six Park despite not breaking any rules Sophie.
Speaker 1: For those who don't know who is Victoria Divine well,
Speaker 1: Victoria is a licensed financial advisor and also director of
Speaker 1: Melbourne finance firm Zella.
Speaker 2: She is also the.
Speaker 1: Very popular host of Australia's number one money podcast, She's
Speaker 1: on the Money. So the podcast is really aimed at
Speaker 1: helping millennial women find financial freedom and she is very
Speaker 1: passionate about helping women take control of their own finances
Speaker 1: and makes smart money.
Speaker 2: Decisions for the future.
Speaker 1: She's on the Money has hit one point one million
Speaker 1: monthly life listeners and she has a large Facebook community
Speaker 1: of over one hundred and seventy thousand members. Victoria was
Speaker 1: also named in Forbes thirty Under thirty list of young entrepreneurs,
Speaker 1: so her career has absolutely taken off. She is an
Speaker 1: incredibly hard worker and someone I have to say that
Speaker 1: I do really admire in the industry. Yeah, and just
Speaker 1: to be transparent, we do know Victoria. We've never actually
Speaker 1: had the pleasure of meeting her in person, but just
Speaker 1: being in the podcast space, we have come across each
Speaker 1: other online and she has been on our podcast before,
Speaker 1: so we just wanted to disclose we do know her. Yeah,
Speaker 1: exactly right. So I suppose this sparked a little bit
Speaker 1: of interest when Victoria's name came up, because I was
Speaker 1: really excited when I saw on the twenty fourth of
Speaker 1: May that she had announced she was partnering with six
Speaker 1: Parts to launch as she's on the Money investing platform.
Speaker 1: So this has been in the works for quite some time.
Speaker 1: So the collaboration is aimed at providing an affordable solution
Speaker 1: for people looking to invest beyond a microinvesting platform. So
Speaker 1: from the get go, Victoria has been very transparent to
Speaker 1: say that she's on the money Investing platform is a
Speaker 1: white label version of six Parks app, So for those
Speaker 1: who don't know what the term white labeling is it
Speaker 1: is essentially when a company rebrands another product or service
Speaker 1: produced by one company to make it appear as if
Speaker 1: they have made it. So, Victoria actually released a podcast
Speaker 1: explaining all the ins and outs of this app. It
Speaker 1: was explained on her Instagram post that this is how
Speaker 1: the app was working and she was collaborating with six Park,
Speaker 1: And I think what is very clear about the app
Speaker 1: is although it is a white label platform, she has
Speaker 1: clearly made the platform her own. So basically, this app
Speaker 1: has been created to ensure that women are still empowered
Speaker 1: to make financial decisions. So the language is very similar
Speaker 1: to the language used in the She's on the Money community.
Speaker 1: The branding is also directed at women and targeted at women.
Speaker 1: And also Victoria is part of the process, so she
Speaker 1: is actually very hands on with the people who sign
Speaker 1: up to this platform. Yeah, and I think that's what's
Speaker 1: so appealing about this app to the She's on the
Speaker 1: Money community is the fact that Victoria is overseeing her
Speaker 1: client's portfolio.
Speaker 2: So that really is the difference.
Speaker 1: So if you do go through six Park, you have
Speaker 1: their team overseeing the portfolio. However, if you go on
Speaker 1: She's on the Money, she is the one looking.
Speaker 2: Over the portfolio.
Speaker 1: So it is a way of getting access to Victoria
Speaker 1: Divine without actually having to become her client and pay
Speaker 1: her this exorbitant amount for that have her financial.
Speaker 2: Advice exactly right.
Speaker 1: And I suppose the way that she manages to do
Speaker 1: this is that that six Park is actually an investment
Speaker 1: platform referred to as a robo advisor. So basically what
Speaker 1: this means is it's a type of financial advisor that
Speaker 1: provides financial advice or investment management online with moderate to
Speaker 1: minimal human intervention. So basically, they provide digital financial advice
Speaker 1: based on mathematical rules or algorithms.
Speaker 2: So how Victoria.
Speaker 1: Explained it on her podcast was that you put in
Speaker 1: some information about your financial situation and they sort of
Speaker 1: come up with a risk portfolio for you based on
Speaker 1: a lot of algorithms.
Speaker 2: However, once it's.
Speaker 1: All set up in the system, the financial advisors like
Speaker 1: Victoria do look over the portfolio to make sure it's
Speaker 1: running properly.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 1: A lot of people have actually been comparing Victoria's app
Speaker 1: to Raise, and it is a completely different type of app.
Speaker 1: So Raise is a micro investing app, and this app
Speaker 1: that Victoria has created with six Park is the next
Speaker 1: step up. So and that's what a lot of people
Speaker 1: don't seem to understand, because you actually have to have
Speaker 1: five thousand dollars you want to invest, so it's not
Speaker 1: like with rays where you just chuck a couple of
Speaker 1: dollars from your purchase, Like this is the next step up.
Speaker 2: So on the day.
Speaker 1: Victoria launched She's on the Money app and her collaboration
Speaker 1: with six Park, the Australian Financial Review actually did a
Speaker 1: really great article on it.
Speaker 2: Now this has.
Speaker 1: Spurred on micro influencer Maddie Walton to post on Instagram
Speaker 1: a little bit of a review into Australian investing platforms. Well,
Speaker 1: Maddi goes by the Instagram handle Money with Maddie and
Speaker 1: she is a twenty three year old retail worker from
Speaker 1: the Gold Coast. Now she has no qualifications in in finance,
Speaker 1: she is not licensed at all, but she gives her
Speaker 1: advice on this platform. So Maddie shared a carousel of
Speaker 1: infographics where she outlined the features of the main Australian
Speaker 1: investment platforms and of course she reviewed that she is
Speaker 1: on the Money new six part investment platform. So on
Speaker 1: the graphic Maddie made several claims which Victoria has refuted.
Speaker 1: So Maddi claimed that the app is not Chess sponsored,
Speaker 1: meaning that the ASX can't keep a list of who
Speaker 1: owns what shares. She also falsely accused Victoria of receiving
Speaker 1: referrals from people who.
Speaker 2: Sign up to the app.
Speaker 1: The post further claim that uses are locked into further
Speaker 1: advice and become a pain client of Victoria's financial advisory Zella.
Speaker 1: Maddie also made a further claim that six part don't
Speaker 1: have a competitive rate for the robot advice space. Now
Speaker 1: Victoria has responded to Mattie's post. She wrote, I do
Speaker 1: not get referrals from anyone that signs up. That is
Speaker 1: factually incorrect. The fee is the same if you go
Speaker 1: through She's on the Money directly or with six Park.
Speaker 2: Further to this, I have.
Speaker 1: Never and will never accept referral payments for any of
Speaker 1: our podcast sponsors or show partners. We strictly only charge
Speaker 1: an advertising fee, so we are never seen to be
Speaker 1: financially motivated to get people to sign up with particular platforms.
Speaker 1: We have refused many referral opportunities as they are not
Speaker 1: in line with the best interests of our community. Victoria
Speaker 1: also further hit back at Maddie's claim saying her financial
Speaker 1: advisory business seller is not involved in six Park. Victoria
Speaker 1: also went on to say that the platform is in
Speaker 1: fact Chess sponsored, so it is clear to me that
Speaker 1: a lot of these claims made by Maddie are very unsubstantiated. Well,
Speaker 1: and also if Mattie's claims come off the back of
Speaker 1: Victoria's Australian Financial Review article, so the Australian Financial Review
Speaker 1: accidentally printed that Victoria was receiving a referral fee, which
Speaker 1: they have now gone and corrected that she is not
Speaker 1: receiving one.
Speaker 2: And what's really interesting is it is actually not.
Speaker 1: Illegal for financial advisors at the moment to receive a
Speaker 1: referral fee. However, it's one of those things that's frowned upon.
Speaker 1: There's a bit of a gray area. But Victoria has
Speaker 1: said time and time again that she doesn't believe in
Speaker 1: accepting referral fees at all. I suppose the confusion is
Speaker 1: around the fact that referral payments are expected to be
Speaker 1: a band form of renumeration for licensed financial advisors under
Speaker 1: the government's contentious.
Speaker 2: Code of Ethics.
Speaker 1: However, this still has not been passed, so even if
Speaker 1: Victoria was taking referral payments, it's actually not illegal.
Speaker 2: Well, the thing that.
Speaker 1: I find really interesting is a lot of these influencers
Speaker 1: who have been having a go at Victoria and her
Speaker 1: app actually accept referral fees. So one of those is
Speaker 1: Tash Invests, and she's been very vocal on her Instagram
Speaker 1: and also her TikTok about Victoria and the six Park app.
Speaker 1: And she has actually one finfluencer that is quite open
Speaker 1: about the fact that she does receive referral fees. So
Speaker 1: if you look on her link tree, there are at
Speaker 1: least four companies that she has referral fees for. What's
Speaker 1: interesting is Tash Invests hit out Victoria and said that
Speaker 1: she's on the money also has referral fees, and this
Speaker 1: is actually true, but the difference is that when she's
Speaker 1: on the money has a referral fee. For example, for Upbank,
Speaker 1: they actually give their listeners ten dollars, whereas Tash Invests
Speaker 1: gives them five dollars. So I suppose what they do
Speaker 1: is that she's on the money, they could be getting
Speaker 1: that five dollars. However, they give it back to their
Speaker 1: listener because they don't ethically believe in taking.
Speaker 2: That refera exactly right now.
Speaker 1: What is crazy that this shit storm has happened on
Speaker 1: social media and gone back and forth and the Australian
Speaker 1: Financial Review has decided to jump in and create an
Speaker 1: article pitching these influences against each other and slamming Victoria.
Speaker 1: It's particularly interesting that the Australian Financial Review took this
Speaker 1: approach because the whole argument was based on misinformation that
Speaker 1: they printed, which Victoria asked them to correct. Yeah. Well,
Speaker 1: from a journalistic perspective, it is a really odd move
Speaker 1: from the Australian Financial Review because the Australian Financial Review,
Speaker 1: if you compare them to other publications like, for example,
Speaker 1: the Daily Mail. We know the Daily Mail will run
Speaker 1: with influencer gossip, but the Australian Financial Review is held
Speaker 1: very highly between finance experts and also in the journalism world,
Speaker 1: and it seems really odd that they have written an
Speaker 1: article based off almost idle gossip from some finance influences.
Speaker 1: And if you read the article, it's very quote heavy
Speaker 1: at the start and it puts across the influencer's view
Speaker 1: and then down the bottom it's where Victoria actually responds
Speaker 1: and everybody knows most people don't get to the end
Speaker 1: of an article, so it would be framed very much
Speaker 1: on the side of these influencers. I found it also
Speaker 1: really odd the fact that they Australian Financial Review wrote
Speaker 1: this glowing article about how great this, how great Victoria's
Speaker 1: partnership was with six part because if they're meant to
Speaker 1: be so educated in the financial world, and that if
Speaker 1: there was a problem with Victoria backing this app then
Speaker 1: why did they do the review? So it doesn't make
Speaker 1: any sense at all. If anything, it makes them look bad.
Speaker 1: The thing that I just can't wrap my head around
Speaker 1: is the fact that there is such a better story here.
Speaker 1: Instead of going after someone who hasn't even done anything wrong,
Speaker 1: why don't they.
Speaker 2: Go after the fact.
Speaker 1: That there are unlicensed and unqualified people providing financial advice
Speaker 1: to people that has the ability to cripple them financially. Well.
Speaker 1: Earlier today, we spoke with Glenn James from my Millennial
Speaker 1: Money because we really wanted to pick the brains of
Speaker 1: an expert and someone who is in that social media space,
Speaker 1: and we put a number of questions to him about
Speaker 1: financial advisors and the laws surrounding what they can actually
Speaker 1: talk about and also this incident at hand. Let's go
Speaker 1: to our interview with Glenn. Firstly, Glenn, what is considered
Speaker 1: financial advice?
Speaker 3: Well, I'm glad you asked, because I think it's important
Speaker 3: to just understand the framework of what financial advice is
Speaker 3: and what it isn't. And I'm actually reading the Corporation's Act,
Speaker 3: section seven sixty six B, and it says financial product
Speaker 3: advice means a recommendation or a statement of opinion or
Speaker 3: a report of either of those things. That and this
Speaker 3: is the absolute kicker, is intended to influence a person
Speaker 3: or persons in making a decision in relation to a
Speaker 3: particular financial product or class, or financial products, or an
Speaker 3: interest in a particular financial product or class. Then it
Speaker 3: says point B it could reasonably be regarded as intended
Speaker 3: to have such an influence. So if we back it up,
Speaker 3: if I if I open an Instagram account today and
Speaker 3: it says Glenn will get invested with Glenn, because I
Speaker 3: just started a TikTok account for fun, and it's called
Speaker 3: get get invested with Glenn. The minute I say, hey, guys,
Speaker 3: if you want to set up a banking structure, should
Speaker 3: use four bank accounts and if you want to find
Speaker 3: a super fund, you should look at these three fees.
Speaker 3: I've walked over the line of a class because I've
Speaker 3: talked about superannuation of a class and I've also talked
Speaker 3: about banking. So it's a very very easy line to cross.
Speaker 3: And then the question is I've crossed the line. So
Speaker 3: I'm automatically in advice territory because I've mentioned the class
Speaker 3: of product. The question is do I need to be
Speaker 3: licensed for that advice? So the Corporations Act is not
Speaker 3: digging around excuse my French or whatever when they're talking
Speaker 3: about financial advice and financial product advice.
Speaker 1: So does that make it really hard in this world
Speaker 1: we live in where we've got a lot of financial podcasts,
Speaker 1: we've got influencers who are spooking financial advice. Is it
Speaker 1: really hard when we get into the category of sponsorship,
Speaker 1: because obviously you deal with that a lot. Is it
Speaker 1: hard to know what you're allowed to promote and what
Speaker 1: you can't promote and what you can't say.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so I think it is hard if you are
Speaker 3: a licensed financial advisor, and we can get to that,
Speaker 3: But just back to this whole You know, I'm a dude,
Speaker 3: I work I make coffee during the day and I've
Speaker 3: got a TikTok or an Instagram account in the night,
Speaker 3: and I talk about money and it's you know, get
Speaker 3: invested with Glenn and all that stuff. The question isn't
Speaker 3: did Glenn give advice? That's not the question because all
Speaker 3: day long, I've opened my trap and I've said super,
Speaker 3: I've opened my trap and said bank accounts. I've opened
Speaker 3: my trap and said investing in shares. So I'm in
Speaker 3: the territory of that financial product advice. The question now becomes, well,
Speaker 3: do I need to be licensed? Because there's no different
Speaker 3: than you know, we might go and get coffee tomorrow
Speaker 3: and I say, oh, Sophie, name me, so go and
Speaker 3: set up a spaceship or raise account. It'll be good.
Speaker 3: Like that's financial advice all day long, by the definition
Speaker 3: of the Corpse Act. And I don't want to try
Speaker 3: and confuse things here, but the question is do you
Speaker 3: need to be licensed? Now, both of you when you
Speaker 3: just give financial advice like that, you don't need to
Speaker 3: have a general advice license because the corpse that goes
Speaker 3: on to say that because your main business isn't basically
Speaker 3: financial advice and dealing with financial products and all that stuff.
Speaker 3: So all day long at a barbecue, you can give
Speaker 3: financial advice because it's not your thing and it's just
Speaker 3: your opinion, you don't need to be licensed. And if
Speaker 3: someone goes and buys a block of gold or a
Speaker 3: snuggie or something off TV because you said so and
Speaker 3: it sucks, well, that's just on them. It goes back
Speaker 3: to what's the core reason. Now, if I had a
Speaker 3: get invested with Glenn TikTok, which I do, and I
Speaker 3: make money from that, and I'm over the line of
Speaker 3: talking about financial products and a class of products and
Speaker 3: whatnot all day long, I think it's clear that in
Speaker 3: that instance of being that financial influence or of influencer
Speaker 3: all day long, I think it's pretty clear that you
Speaker 3: might need to be licensed. Now, full disclosure, my Millennial Money,
Speaker 3: my podcast and all the stuff we do online, all
Speaker 3: my blogs, I actually pay for a general advice license.
Speaker 1: So, Glenn, because you are a retired financial advisor, can
Speaker 1: you talk us through what guidelines you have to adbide
Speaker 1: by when you're giving financial advice and also when you
Speaker 1: take sponsors on board for your podcast.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So when I started my podcast, I was actually
Speaker 3: a financial advisor. I had my bricks and mortar financial
Speaker 3: planning business, and you know, ordinarily, if I'm just doing
Speaker 3: my thing, and you know, I'm a financial advisor and
Speaker 3: someone comes into my office and they want financial advice, well,
Speaker 3: we sit down and I get their goals, I get
Speaker 3: their needs. I really understand their personal circumstances. Then I
Speaker 3: put together a recommendation which is in the form of
Speaker 3: a statement of advice, which is formal financial advice, and
Speaker 3: that actually says, high, clients, you've told me you wanted
Speaker 3: these goals met, Well, I believe these products will help
Speaker 3: you achieve those goals, whether it's cash flow and banking structures,
Speaker 3: whether it's getting out of debt, whether it's superannuation or insurance,
Speaker 3: and I give them formal financial advice. It's a document.
Speaker 3: It's pretty big document because you know, I have to
Speaker 3: hang my hat on that advice, and it's compliant the law.
Speaker 3: So it's really good because the clients have paid to
Speaker 3: get advice based on their own personal situation. Now there
Speaker 3: are strict rules involved if you are a licensed financial advisor.
Speaker 3: So for example, in the eighties and nineties, if you're
Speaker 3: a financial advisor, you could you might you know, put
Speaker 3: a whole he bit of investments over in that company
Speaker 3: over there, and they would say, oh, Glenn, you've done
Speaker 3: really well. Let's take you over to Hawaii on a
Speaker 3: junket and we'll pay for it all. So there would
Speaker 3: be more incentive for the advisor to maybe use that
Speaker 3: product because they're getting the trip to Hawaii. So fast forward.
Speaker 3: Now all that's been cleaned up out of the industry,
Speaker 3: like you actually can't do it, and I'd just like
Speaker 3: to have a jab there that I know. There are
Speaker 3: still people in the medical profession who get flown around
Speaker 3: the world on jackets from drug companies, but we won't
Speaker 3: go there right now. So it has cleaned up a lot,
Speaker 3: and there is now a code of ethics that advisor
Speaker 3: has to go by. So, for example, if you are
Speaker 3: a licensed financial advisor and you had a podcast, well
Speaker 3: you really couldn't take money to sign people up to
Speaker 3: an investment because it's just against the law.
Speaker 2: So how does that do for them?
Speaker 1: Because we're seeing so many finance influencers dubbed fin influencers,
Speaker 1: how are the rules different for them?
Speaker 3: Well, they're not licensed, so it's the wild West. And
Speaker 3: particularly with the podcasting and Instagram world. So for example,
Speaker 3: on our podcast, I could pretty much say, hey everyone,
Speaker 3: it's Glennye, welcome to my millennial money. I want everyone
Speaker 3: to go and buy you this over here. Even if
Speaker 3: you know, everyone go buy Nike shoes. It's all good.
Speaker 3: Just they're the best shoes ever. I could be getting
Speaker 3: a million dollars out the back door from Nike, and
Speaker 3: it's legal because it's the wild West where it's different
Speaker 3: than radio. You can't do that on radio. So I
Speaker 3: think what we're finding is that, you know, twenty first
Speaker 3: century tech and online stuff, you know, the old laws
Speaker 3: haven't caught up with it yet. And I'm really predicting
Speaker 3: that in the future there will be laws in place
Speaker 3: for podcasters, there will be laws in place for influencers,
Speaker 3: because it is actually the wild West. And I'm very
Speaker 3: sure when I do a podcast, if there is a
Speaker 3: paid thing, we will disclose it in the show notes
Speaker 3: and it will be apparent that isn't it isn't ad
Speaker 3: like I'm still going to slip in oh and I
Speaker 3: wear night shoes like. So, I think there has to
Speaker 3: be a level of integrity for the individual influencer when
Speaker 3: they are dealing with this stuff because it is the
Speaker 3: wild West and there's actually no rules.
Speaker 1: So does that mean say I started another podcast and
Speaker 1: I started talking about investments and crypto with all types
Speaker 1: of topics related to finance, Does that mean I could
Speaker 1: just go on and spook super annuation companies and anything.
Speaker 2: Because I absolutely, yeah.
Speaker 3: Totally, you can do that tomorrow. You're a qualified for influencer.
Speaker 3: And to me, it goes back to the wording in
Speaker 3: the Corporations Act that says that it's a statement of
Speaker 3: opinion that could influence someone. So by definition, if you
Speaker 3: went out and created that podcast and you were like,
Speaker 3: all right, everyone use this super company over here, or
Speaker 3: if you created an Instagram account and say I use
Speaker 3: this super account because it's the cheapest, you're giving an
Speaker 3: opinion about a financial product the corporation and Zach says
Speaker 3: that that's financial product advice. So I think it's a
Speaker 3: very gray area. And that's why for me personally, I
Speaker 3: pay close to forty thousand dollars a year to have
Speaker 3: a license, a general advice license. Are we giving general
Speaker 3: advice all day long? The Corpse Act says we're giving advice.
Speaker 3: The question is do you need to be licensed? It's gray?
Speaker 3: It hasn't been tested in court, and I believe I
Speaker 3: would rather not work in the gray and just be
Speaker 3: above reproach in that area.
Speaker 1: I just think it's so confusing though, for the listener
Speaker 1: or consumer of this information, because it just seems so
Speaker 1: odd to me that someone who has qualifications in finance
Speaker 1: they are bound by all of these rules that they
Speaker 1: have to abide by. Yet someone who then calls themselves
Speaker 1: a finfluencer and has no qualifications, no background experience in it,
Speaker 1: they can just do whatever they like. I think that
Speaker 1: their needs to be some sort of boundaries in place
Speaker 1: for them as well. Do you think it is a
Speaker 1: little bit unfair that they are able to play by
Speaker 1: their own rules.
Speaker 3: Yes, and I would actually, I guess for the benefit
Speaker 3: of the consumer I think, and the regulator. You know,
Speaker 3: if you have any influencer listeners or whatever that listen
Speaker 3: to your podcast, I would actually be very very cautious
Speaker 3: because ask have said they're like looking into this unlicensed
Speaker 3: financial advice stuff. And by definition, if you're calling yourself
Speaker 3: a finfluencer, you are influencing people about money and finance
Speaker 3: and that often includes products. And I honestly think my
Speaker 3: you know, and I've thought about this for a whole
Speaker 3: ten minutes, but I'm kind of thinking maybe there should
Speaker 3: be some type of regulation that if you've got influence
Speaker 3: over say five thousand people or ten whatever the threshold is,
Speaker 3: or you generate an income of over this amount and
Speaker 3: you are talking about money, you need to be licensed.
Speaker 1: What is so crazy is that finance brands and banks
Speaker 1: they're going to opt to go with someone who doesn't
Speaker 1: who isn't restricted by guidelines. So this is just pumping
Speaker 1: up these unqualified influencers more, filling their pockets with more money.
Speaker 1: And that it's even more harmful because it's really confusing
Speaker 1: for consumers to know who is qualified and who isn't
Speaker 1: qualified and who they should be taking advice for.
Speaker 2: Do you think it is quite.
Speaker 1: Concerning that these consumers are unknowingly receiving unlicensed information?
Speaker 3: Oh? Absolutely? And I mean I follow a few influencers
Speaker 3: on Instagram because you know, I'm out there, I've got
Speaker 3: a money podcast. I want to keep my finger on
Speaker 3: the pulse what all the cool people are doing and
Speaker 3: all that stuff. And I say that jokingly because I'm old, right,
Speaker 3: I'm not twenty three with a banging Instagram account or
Speaker 3: TikTok follows or anything like that. But I think it's
Speaker 3: I like to keep my finger the poles. I don't
Speaker 3: know where I was going with this, but I think
Speaker 3: it's actually the same as like if we forget the
Speaker 3: word of influencers and we actually go and talk about
Speaker 3: health and wellness and what about ice. You know, Glenn
Speaker 3: James starts an investment, Sorry, Glenn James starts an instagram
Speaker 3: like health with Glenn, you know, follow me for all
Speaker 3: your health tips, And I could get really big and
Speaker 3: I could be actually saying the biggest load of crap
Speaker 3: and people are actually taking i don't know, lemon scented
Speaker 3: water drinks or something weird to cure cancer. Because I said,
Speaker 3: it works like it's actually no different to the health
Speaker 3: stuff and it's equally concerning the health side of it.
Speaker 1: In my opinion, that's such a good point because I
Speaker 1: feel like people are sort of waking up to those
Speaker 1: health and wellness influences and a lot of people are
Speaker 1: now calling out their practices. But I think that a
Speaker 1: lot of consumers we just don't know. We don't know
Speaker 1: the rules regarding influencers. So it's really great to actually
Speaker 1: have you on clearing up a lot of this because
Speaker 1: I feel like a lot of our listeners will actually
Speaker 1: take something away from this. But it's also confusing because
Speaker 1: recently the government has come out and said that taking
Speaker 1: advice from an unqualified financial influencer is like getting advice
Speaker 1: from your mate down at the pub. I just think
Speaker 1: it's kind of confusing because I thought they'd be wanting
Speaker 1: to set strict guidelines in place. What do you make
Speaker 1: of the government's recent comments about it?
Speaker 3: Yeah, so I think, like anything, Jane Hume, who is
Speaker 3: the senator who looks after all the financial services stuff,
Speaker 3: I honestly think maybe she just got caught up in
Speaker 3: a throwaway line. You know. I just don't know, And
Speaker 3: all I know is one she's been on my podcast before.
Speaker 3: I'm going to get her to try and come back
Speaker 3: on my podcast and talk about this. I have feeling
Speaker 3: sull decline, but I'm still going to ask. But I
Speaker 3: just just got to look at the regulator, and we
Speaker 3: know that ACIK are looking at this stuff, and I
Speaker 3: for one am not dicking around with ACIK like as
Speaker 3: simple as that, because this stuff hasn't been tested in
Speaker 3: court and I don't want to be the first one
Speaker 3: that gets wheeled into court because a lot of the
Speaker 3: times the regulator if it's gray, right, There's been cases
Speaker 3: like in the late nineties, I forget the case off
Speaker 3: the top of my head, but there was a case
Speaker 3: that ACIK wanted to try. They didn't know the outcome
Speaker 3: of and they paid the person they were suing legal fees.
Speaker 3: So it was pretty much like, all right, here's a
Speaker 3: couple of million dollars, go get the best legal device
Speaker 3: you can get. We're going to sue you to see
Speaker 3: if this stands up in court. And because all this
Speaker 3: stuff's gray, I don't want to be the first one
Speaker 3: that's you know, heading into the court to be tested.
Speaker 3: Because if you're found guilty of being out there providing
Speaker 3: unlicensed financial advice, there can be prison time and over
Speaker 3: one hundred thousand dollars worth of fines. And this is
Speaker 3: why we just can't mess around with this stuff. And
Speaker 3: I'm not against people making a living online totally. I
Speaker 3: want everyone to have a banging Instagram, but I just
Speaker 3: am worried that it's just the wild West out there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it is going to take one influencer to kind
Speaker 1: of be made an example of.
Speaker 2: I think in this situation.
Speaker 1: And what I find really interesting is I wonder if
Speaker 1: the brand, the finance brand that they're promoting will also
Speaker 1: be held.
Speaker 2: Won't be a great response, It.
Speaker 1: Won't be great pr for anybody involved.
Speaker 3: No, And this is why, you know, you just have
Speaker 3: to be aware of the playing field. And I just
Speaker 3: caution everybody. You go back to that young lady who
Speaker 3: was doing the health stuff, I think it was Bell
Speaker 3: or something and she was then yeah, like, it's actually
Speaker 3: no different than that, and it can be life or
Speaker 3: death consequences in terms of financial death. And sure, given
Speaker 3: a lot of these people you're influencing, like they're not
Speaker 3: high income earners, Like if you had five hundred thousand
Speaker 3: dollars to invest, I'm pretty much confident I'm not going
Speaker 3: to do what someone says on Instagram. But you just
Speaker 3: don't know because these people do have influence. And yeah,
Speaker 3: I just can't operate in that area. And that's why
Speaker 3: I've got a license for general advice. You guys like
Speaker 3: talk about a lot of like gossipy stuff. Are we
Speaker 3: going to get to the gossip soon? Yeah?
Speaker 1: Yeah, Like Glen wants Glen wants the tea he wants, Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right.
Speaker 3: And you know, I listened to your vodcast on Guys.
Speaker 3: I wait here for.
Speaker 2: Right, it is my next question.
Speaker 3: Actually, oh so let's just kind of step back a
Speaker 3: bit just to really give another practical example. That Day
Speaker 3: show Sunrise. You know they've got a money segment. You know,
Speaker 3: I was on Today Extra the other day, first time
Speaker 3: on Today Extra. So that Today Show might have a
Speaker 3: money segment, and they might talk about super So we
Speaker 3: know that they've talked about a class of products. So
Speaker 3: they're already in that financial product advice territory because they've
Speaker 3: talked about the class of product. Now the reason they
Speaker 3: don't need a general advice license is because money isn't
Speaker 3: their core business. Their core businesses or Today's show, we've
Speaker 3: got Karl here, you know, talking with people getting fired
Speaker 3: and then getting rehired because it actually makes us money. Like, oh,
Speaker 3: I also held a logo the other day. I've picked
Speaker 3: it up in the studio. It was heavy anyway, you.
Speaker 1: Just pretended for a moment that that was yours exactly.
Speaker 3: So I think it's so it's just clear to know
Speaker 3: because the Today Show and Sunrise don't have a business
Speaker 3: in the background influencing people as they call business with
Speaker 3: money and making recommendations. That's why they don't need the
Speaker 3: general advice license.
Speaker 2: So that makes where we go back.
Speaker 3: We go back to get invested with Glenn's TikTok. Well,
Speaker 3: my whole thing for my account is money. Yeah, people
Speaker 3: send me DM saying what should I invest in? And
Speaker 3: I don't know if it's going to cut it by saying, hey,
Speaker 3: I'm not an advisor, get your own advice, but have
Speaker 3: a look at this investment here.
Speaker 1: Hmm.
Speaker 2: That's such a good point.
Speaker 3: But also I'm not a lawyer. This stuff hasn't been
Speaker 3: tested in court, and it's still the wild West. We
Speaker 3: all know with new stuff, the law catches up, society
Speaker 3: catches up.
Speaker 1: Now, Glenn, you touched on a bit of controversy before,
Speaker 1: so we're going to get into it. So last week,
Speaker 1: micro influencer Maddie Waltons, who works in retail but runs
Speaker 1: her account money with Maddie Now, she called financial advisor
Speaker 1: Victoria Divine out for her collaboration with six Park, saying
Speaker 1: that Victoria didn't completely disclose her financial benefits. Now, it
Speaker 1: appears the Financial Review incorrectly referred to the partnership as
Speaker 1: a form of referral, which has subsequently been clarified as
Speaker 1: a revenue share agreement. Firstly, I'd love to know what
Speaker 1: your reaction is to the story, and also maybe can
Speaker 1: you go into the rules around referrals.
Speaker 3: Well, my reaction was like, everyone, Oh, grab some popcorn,
Speaker 3: let's have a read here. But no, firstly, I want
Speaker 3: to say, full disclosure, I'm friends with Victoria. Full disclosure.
Speaker 3: I've met Maddie. I think Tash was involved with that.
Speaker 3: I've met all of them. I don't have a dog
Speaker 3: in this fight, but I will say a couple of things.
Speaker 3: Sure Victoria, I think, and she since clarified. I think
Speaker 3: she did a podcast and clarified it. I think she
Speaker 3: did another one or amended that clarification. And sure, she
Speaker 3: obviously wasn't taking a referral fee. So if she was
Speaker 3: taking a referral fee, there would be more incentive for
Speaker 3: her to sign up as many individual people as possible.
Speaker 3: But we know that, you know, I make money, you
Speaker 3: make money. Everyone makes money. We get that she may
Speaker 3: have got lost in the semantics of the words, but
Speaker 3: that's all being clarified and put to bed. So I
Speaker 3: think one other confusing thing that was out there that
Speaker 3: I saw that I'm not against six Park. I'm not
Speaker 3: against Victoria, I'm not against anyone. Actually don't actually wish
Speaker 3: ill upon anyone. But there was misunderstanding about what six
Speaker 3: Park was and the benefits because it's actually formal advice.
Speaker 3: You get that statement of advice. And I don't want
Speaker 3: to bore everyone to tears, but if you want to
Speaker 3: actually understand a bit under the hood in a technical
Speaker 3: way about six Park and how all that works with
Speaker 3: robo advice, there's an episode over on My Millennial Money
Speaker 3: and we go deep on the technicality side of that.
Speaker 3: So all to say that the clab with six Park
Speaker 3: that was legit. Six parks legit. I know six Park
Speaker 3: when they reached out, I think someone asked, six Park
Speaker 3: do you have advisors working there? And I think their
Speaker 3: chatbot or email things said no, we do not have
Speaker 3: advisors here. Where it's like, well, no, your computer produces
Speaker 3: formal financial advice. So there was actually a few things
Speaker 3: that was in this teacup swirling around. There was some
Speaker 3: semantics with wording. There was not understanding that six Park
Speaker 3: actually provided formal financial advice. And the whole thing is like,
Speaker 3: and this is the struggle we all have as podcasters right.
Speaker 3: We have listeners from the whole spectrum, right, and we
Speaker 3: have to do this show and try and please everyone.
Speaker 3: And someone could say, well, why are you doing six Park?
Speaker 3: You need at least five thousand dollars before you get invested. Well,
Speaker 3: believe it or not. If you don't have five thousand dollars,
Speaker 3: that's okay, it's not for you. There can be other
Speaker 3: people that have thirty or forty thousand dollars laying around
Speaker 3: they don't know what to do with it. So I've
Speaker 3: had to like really try and understand myself. If I
Speaker 3: see stuff online and I get outraged, like how can
Speaker 3: they do that? Well, okay, well it's obviously not for me,
Speaker 3: and that's okay. So I think there's just it was
Speaker 3: a big teacup with a lot of things moving. And
Speaker 3: good on the girls for, you know, asking for some clarity.
Speaker 3: Totally get that, And good on Victoria for also being
Speaker 3: open with a bloody AFR. Because if there's someone I
Speaker 3: don't want to dick with, it's the ASSIC and the AFR.
Speaker 3: They're the two acronyms, whereas like and they're probably the
Speaker 3: ato in there. There's three acronyms that I don't want
Speaker 3: to mess around with.
Speaker 1: Right, it seems like there is this sort of war
Speaker 1: against financial advisors and the finfluencers. Do you think there
Speaker 1: is some kind of motivation for some finance influencers to
Speaker 1: try and push these type of stories to tear the
Speaker 1: financial advisors down, because obviously they're all competing for the
Speaker 1: same sponsorship revenue. What do you think some of the
Speaker 1: motivation for these type of stories are.
Speaker 3: I think there's the biggest fight out there online is
Speaker 3: for attention, and if you can make some noise right
Speaker 3: or wrong, you'll get attention. So yeah, I just think
Speaker 3: it's it's wild and yeah, it's good times. But I
Speaker 3: honestly think there will be change coming from the regulators.
Speaker 1: I was going to ask you that, Glenn, what do
Speaker 1: you think needs to change about the rules?
Speaker 3: Well, I think, going back to what I said before,
Speaker 3: like if I'm running my millennial money and I'm generating
Speaker 3: an income and I've got over X amount of followers
Speaker 3: or over X amount of income, I think you should
Speaker 3: just have to have a general advice license, as simple
Speaker 3: as that. So I honestly think in terms of the
Speaker 3: money scene, the regulators probably need to step out and say, yeah,
Speaker 3: if you influence over X amount of people, or you
Speaker 3: generate over X amount per year on that money account.
Speaker 3: That is a core business. You are influencing people about
Speaker 3: money and all that stuff, because I've watched influences online
Speaker 3: say stuff about money and it's been categorically incorrect.
Speaker 2: Yeah, definitely, Well, thank you so much, Glinton. Yea, that
Speaker 2: was great, Thank you.
Speaker 1: I think it is going to be so interesting to
Speaker 1: see this time next year what new guidelines are in place,
Speaker 1: because I do think major changes need to be made.
Speaker 1: The fact that these unqualified finance influencers aren't bound by
Speaker 1: the same guidelines as financial advisors is just so wrong
Speaker 1: to me, because they can push the boundaries when promoting
Speaker 1: financial products. I think it's also quite disturbing because because
Speaker 1: they aren't bound by these guidelines, they are more appealing
Speaker 1: to big brands who want to use more persuasive language
Speaker 1: and have calls to action during these adverts. The financial
Speaker 1: advisors legally and ethically don't give well. Just on the
Speaker 1: issue of brands, I do wonder if some big brands
Speaker 1: are going to reassess whether they do want to use
Speaker 1: unlicensed influencers in the future to promote their products, because
Speaker 1: they do lack a lot of credibility, and we are
Speaker 1: going to see in the future. I believe some influencers
Speaker 1: who are unlicensed held to account. And if you're a
Speaker 1: big brand, you might be saying far our. I don't
Speaker 1: know if I want to be made an example and
Speaker 1: attached to those kinds of people. Yeah, and also it
Speaker 1: does make me really think about the influencers involved in
Speaker 1: this Victoria Divine story. So for me learning the fact
Speaker 1: that these unlicensed influencers can actually gain this referral money
Speaker 1: and also you know, do whatever they want basically with sponsors,
Speaker 1: it does make me think, well, is there a reason
Speaker 1: why these two women have decided to drag Victoria down?
Speaker 1: Because I do think that. I mean, they're working with
Speaker 1: sponsors that she also works with. So if they are
Speaker 1: pointing out that this is ethically and also claiming that
Speaker 1: it is legally not right, and then getting this information
Speaker 1: in the Australian Financial Review, for people and brands that
Speaker 1: don't actually understand that, hey, Victoria actually didn't do anything
Speaker 1: wrong here, they might not want to actually sponsor her. Well, yeah,
Speaker 1: they've got a lot to gain, don't they by dragging
Speaker 1: someone like Victoria Divine down because she is arguably the
Speaker 1: biggest finance influencer in the country, and if she's not
Speaker 1: in the picture anymore, that's going to give other people
Speaker 1: the opportunity. I don't know whether that is their motivation,
Speaker 1: it might not be at all, but it does seem
Speaker 1: a bit iffy that this sort of stuff is going on. Well,
Speaker 1: I'm really worried that there is a vendetta going on
Speaker 1: because as someone who is part of the She's on
Speaker 1: the Money community, these two girls were actually removed a
Speaker 1: few weeks ago for distributing factually incorrect information and also
Speaker 1: breaching community standards of self promotion. So these two girls
Speaker 1: were actually trying to promote their own pages in the group,
Speaker 1: and clearly for Victoria, who is a financial advisor, she
Speaker 1: would be very against unqualified people putting out that sort
Speaker 1: of information.
Speaker 2: Do you know what's crazy?
Speaker 1: Because you think about in twenty twenty one, we all
Speaker 1: seem to be so savvy about wellness influencers and everybody
Speaker 1: seems to be calling out health and fitness and wellness
Speaker 1: influencers for spreading misinformation. But it seems like we're only
Speaker 1: now becoming clued on to the fact that a lot
Speaker 1: of these finance influencers have no credibility, they have no qualifications.
Speaker 1: It doesn't seem like we're that concerned by me. It
Speaker 1: seems like we will still consume the government aren't concerned
Speaker 1: about it. I think people are unaware because I did
Speaker 1: come across tash invest page before and I wasn't aware
Speaker 1: that she was a disability worker. I just assumed she
Speaker 1: was a financial advisor because I didn't really look much
Speaker 1: into it. And that's the thing, though, there's nothing wrong
Speaker 1: with someone taking interest in being financially literate, but it
Speaker 1: does get into a gray area when you are telling
Speaker 1: other people what to do with their finances. And as
Speaker 1: Glenn said, this gray area because if they are giving
Speaker 1: financial advice, they should be under the same laws that
Speaker 1: a qualified financial advisor is under, because it's, as Glenn said,
Speaker 1: it's the wild West.
Speaker 2: Otherwise, you did.
Speaker 1: Touch on this before, aiming I think there is a
Speaker 1: lot of tall poppy syndrome going around at the moment,
Speaker 1: particularly with Victoria divine and sadly, I think the fact
Speaker 1: that she is a young, successful woman has a lot
Speaker 1: to do with it.
Speaker 2: I mean, if you look at Glenn.
Speaker 1: Who is also a very successful host of a money podcast,
Speaker 1: he does not receive the scrutiny that Victoria receipts. You
Speaker 1: just have to look at Victoria's reviews to see that
Speaker 1: she is being unfairly targeted for some reason, and it
Speaker 1: is very clear that I don't know, for some reason,
Speaker 1: we don't like to see a woman doing really well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it is.
Speaker 1: It is so true because I think a lot of
Speaker 1: the same audience that would listen to Glenn also listen
Speaker 1: to Victoria. And as as you said, the reviews are
Speaker 1: really different. I mean, there's one thing if you're reviewing
Speaker 1: someone and you're actually legitimately giving them something to work on.
Speaker 2: Maybe it's the structure of their podcast.
Speaker 1: But there are a lot of reviews which do tear
Speaker 1: her down her personality. Yeah, I do find it interesting
Speaker 1: that it's two young women that are trying to sort
Speaker 1: of drag her down. Yeah, it is really awkward because
Speaker 1: when I was researching this topic, I did have a
Speaker 1: look at tash invest TikTok page and one of her
Speaker 1: popular videos was her actually talking about how she received
Speaker 1: a comment from Victoria define and how she was fanned.
Speaker 2: Going over it. So it is crazy.
Speaker 1: In just a few months it has blown up into
Speaker 1: this kind of feud between the pair. I am really
Speaker 1: interested to see what does happen in the future because
Speaker 1: they have I've been calls by senior finance lecturers at
Speaker 1: r MIT for social media to introduce wealth warnings on
Speaker 1: social media content, and I think this is a great
Speaker 1: idea because at the moment there are unlicensed influencers who
Speaker 1: are able to say anything they want without any repercussions.
Speaker 1: Well that's all we've got time for today. Thank you
Speaker 1: so much for listening to another episode about Spoken. If
Speaker 1: you did like the episode, we would love if you
Speaker 1: could leave us a review as it really helps us out.
Speaker 1: And don't forget to subscribe on Spotify and also on
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts and also on Spotify. If you can leave
Speaker 1: us a love heart, it really does help out the show.
Speaker 2: Who I like the idea of
Speaker 1: The love heart And just a reminder if you are
Speaker 1: interested in discussing the topics we've spoken about on the podcast,
Speaker 1: go and join our Facebook community which has outspoken the
Speaker 1: podcast community.