Despite the financial planning industry's campaign to promote the value of advice, it seems many aged over 50 are yet to be convinced. Only one in four respondents to a survey by financial services industry consultant CoreData/brandmanagement nominated financial advisers as their main source of financial advice and information.

Almost 45 per cent said they relied on their own skills to maximise their retirement lump sum and income.

Craig Phillips, a partner at CoreData/brandmanagement, says: "There is a significant portion of the population who do not buy into the idea of financial advice or have yet to be convinced of the merits of getting professional advice."

He suspects that strongly rising markets over the past several years have made people feel they can manage their retirement savings themselves.

He says many are likely to have simple retirement strategies with an investment property or a single superannuation fund. Perhaps they do not feel their circumstances warrant professional advice.

However, the survey also revealed that many respondents who said they did not have a financial adviser were likely to benefit from advice.

CoreData/brandmanagement divided the over-50s into two groups: retirees and those yet to retire, called pre-retirees. Only 31 per cent of pre-retirees said they were on track to achieve their retirement goals.

Regardless of whether they had a financial adviser, more than 70 per cent of the pre-retirees had no written financial plan. And more than 40 per cent of them did not know how their super had performed since markets went into a tailspin last November. Since then, more than 20 per cent has been wiped off the value of global shares.

"We have had a period of four or five years where it has been quite easy to make money," Phillips says. He expects more people to take advice as the reality of tougher markets hits home.

It is not only shares that are suffering. Property prices, particularly for investment units, are falling in some parts of Sydney and Melbourne.

Phillips is noncommittal about whether negative perceptions of the financial planning industry are turning consumers away from advice.

In February, the Financial Planning Association released a report that showed consumers who obtained and acted on financial advice fared better financially than those who did not.

The report, Value Of Advice, by Rice Warner Actuaries, said what added most value was not just picking investments but advising on maximising government support, budgeting, setting goals and tax management.

Releasing the report, association chief executive Jo-Anne Bloch said setting long-term goals was even more essential during times of market volatility.

Surveys by the association show that once people have experience of an adviser they report high levels of satisfaction with the advice they are receiving. But scandals involving a minority of advisers have tarnished the reputation of the industry.

About 4000 investors, most of them retirees, lost more than $300 million when the property group Westpoint collapsed in 2005. Up to $200 million was placed in Westpoint by planners who work for about 20 mostly small firms that were members of the FPA.

The big commissions paid by Westpoint to planners for recommending its investments are believed to have been a factor in the flow of funds into the risky investment.

The issue of commissions in financial planning and the conflicts of interest that result is a long-running sore with consumer groups. The financial planning industry denies it but commissions can lead to advisers recommending products or services that are not in the consumers' best interests.

The financial advice industry and the the Australian Securities and Investments Commission are responding to the planning industry's problems.

There has been a flurry of activity by both organisations. The FPA has banned or suspended advisers over their role in Westpoint.

Several financial planning firms are being sued over the Westpoint losses and ASIC has initiated court action against planning firms as it attempts to recover some of the losses.

The regulator has said it will investigate financial advisers who put investors into Westpoint but some have subsequently placed their companies in administration and started up anew.

Even with the dust from Westpoint far from settled, more bad news for the industry is breaking. And again, just as for Westpoint, it appears that high commissions may have played a role.

Some of the investors who will end up losing money in the collapse of two stockbroking firms, Opes Prime and Lift Capital, are believed to have become clients of the stockbrokers on the advice of financial planners who were paid generous commissions.

More planning firms are introducing a fee-for-service payment alternative to commissions but the commission system still dominates.

The commission system is a very convenient set-up for the industry. It is based on a percentage of the consumers' assets and comes out of the invested capital.

If the consumer goes to see a planner and invests in a managed fund, for example, the commission will be paid out of the consumer's capital even if the consumer never sees that planner again. The ongoing commission will only be switched off if the consumer sells the investment.

It is likely the problems that continue to beset the industry are putting some consumers off seeking advice.