Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
  • subs-bellGet the latest news! Subscribe to the ifa bulletin

Stories that made headlines in 2022

What a year 2022 has been. The year was not without optimism as the pandemic ended (kind of), but was followed by rapidly rising inflation, which in turn led to rapidly rising interest rates and cost-of-living pressures. All the while, the advice industry faced continued departures and reviews about its future.

But before we put 2022 in the rear-view mirror, let’s have a look back at the news that made headlines on ifa this year.

  1. Providing ‘good advice’

Unsurprisingly, the Quality of Advice Review (QAR) and lead reviewer Michelle Levy made an appearance on the most-read list.

Speaking at The AFR Super and Wealth Summit in November, Ms Levy defended her proposal to allow non-relevant providers to provide financial advice.

Ms Levy said she wants to encourage banks and other institutions to use the information they have to advise their customers under her “good advice” model.

“We know superannuation funds are giving advice. I would be saying they have a responsibility to be giving helpful advice to their members and likewise banks, insurance and investment managers,” Ms Levy said.

Read more here.

==
==
  1. FASEA to blame for declining adviser numbers

Despite FASEA being wound up in January and its responsibilities being passed to ASIC, adviser numbers continue to drop. Late last year, it was revealed that the number of Australian advisers shrank below 19,000 in 2021 and is predicted to reach 13,000 by the end of 2023.

Appearing on the ifa podcast in March, founder and CEO of WOW Women’s Group Tracey Sofra said prior education not being recognised by FASEA, which has been widely criticised previously, meant advisers, particularly older planners, opted to exit the industry.

“Even people like myself who [were] told that I had to do this exam. It was like, ‘What? You’re kidding me, right?’ I'm degree qualified. I've done my CPA. I’ve been in business for 27 years. You want me to do what? I kind of got offended,” Ms Sofra said.

Read more here.

  1. Exodus predictions

Once again, a prediction of doom for the industry snagged eyeballs in April, this time in the form of an Adviser Ratings report with a very specific prognostication: that 2,387 advisers would depart the industry in 2022.

Adviser Ratings CEO Angus Woods said the findings reflect an advice industry that has been “in a state of flux for a number of years” and that change continues.

“The advice and wealth management industries continue to evolve, and the impacts across the board, from product providers through to consumers, is significant,” Mr Woods said.

Read more here.

  1. ‘FASEA got it wrong’

Is anyone shocked that a professional body taking a crack at FASEA is near the top of this list?

In its submission to Treasury on the Education Standards for Financial Advisers policy paper in February, the Financial Planning Association of Australia (FPA) took aim at FASEA’s “one-size-fits-all framework” and argued that streamlining education requirements “risks the professionalism journey” that advisers have undertaken over the past decade.

“It’s so important to maintain the gains our profession has won and keep the trust of consumers. We cannot return to the days when a planner could technically be qualified with only a two-day course, with no time frame for that to change,” FPA chief executive Sarah Abood said.

“For this reason, the FPA does not support the proposed 10 years of experience in the past 12 years pathway as proposed.”

Instead, the FPA recommended the experience pathway only be available to professionals 55 and over, and who have “at least 15 years’ experience gained in the past 20 years, and be sunset in 10 years’ time”.

Read more here.

  1. QAR takes the cake

The August release of Michelle Levy’s QAR proposals? Yeah, that was always going to get the top spot.

In the paper, Ms Levy put forward a number of proposals, including that the financial services regime should regulate the provision of “personal advice” which should be “somewhat broader” to ensure clarity. The paper also suggests that “general advice” should be removed altogether.

The proposal paper did note: “The review is not over and this paper sets out proposals for the purposes of further discussion. They are not final recommendations, nor are they complete.”

That addendum didn’t stop tongues from wagging, with a mountain of comments (don’t expect to see many positive ones when you go back and check out this article).

Read more here.