The summary of actual levies for the 2020 year reveals ASIC will charge a minimum levy of $1,500 per licensee that provides personal advice to retail clients, plus $2,426 per adviser.
In its cost recovery implementation statement, the regulator said the chief activities conducted relating to advice supervision during the financial year had included monitoring the restructure of large banks away from wealth management, monitoring the phasing out of grandfathered commissions, banning advisers with serious compliance concerns and conducting consumer testing of more appropriate labels for general advice.
The news confirms the concerns of the AFA raised earlier this year when ASIC issued drastically revised estimates of advice levies in November, which had increased more than 60 per cent compared to its June estimates of $1,571 per adviser.
Following the association raising concerns with Treasury over the increase, ASIC removed the November estimates and it was hoped they would be revised down, but they were re-posted in early February after the government had seemingly been unable to confirm any relief for the industry on COVID grounds.
ASIC said it would issue invoices for the levies to industry participants shortly.
so much for ‘free, prior and informed consent’
Enough is way to Enough.
[b]Every Adviser should REVOLT and refuse to PAY[/b][b][/b].
Let ASIC try to SHUT the whole Industry Down.
What an absolute JOKE.
And we get to pay for:
– ASIC chasing Fraudulent NON Adviser Like Melissa Caddick.
– ASIC’s totally False SMSF Cost Sheet.
– ASIC chasing the Banks for letting them get away for 10 years of Fee for No Service.
– Westpac Wagyu and Shiraz case, twice.
– Paid for comment so call academics bribed to make ASIC directed FARSEA submissions.
– the list goes on and on and we ha e to pay for this rubbish, lies and Adviser harassment.
It is beyond Wrong.
I’m really thinking of NOT paying for our Advisers.
Beyond Disgusted.
I don’t think I received value for money, there is no service agreement in place so I am not going to sign my opt in
Here I am designing a new fee increase letter and schedule for clients. I’m so glad ASIC want scaled and Affordable advice
At what point as an industry do we say “enough is enough”. Yes, some might say its just another $1,000, but were does this end? The improvements to our industry have been significant, and continue. Perhaps its time Government reward our efforts, rather than inflict more pain.
where there soa
got to be kidding who are these people who wield so much power, where is the accountability!
Just the tip of the iceberg. If you give a monopoly body the power to set its own fees, what do you think will happen? In 5 years it will be closer to $10k per adviser, mark my words
Shame on you ASIC
What a disgrace , trying to reduce the cost of advice. Tell advisers they will look to keep the fees to around $1,000 per adviser now hit advisers with this. What does ASIC do other than use a stick to the industry. If they provided education , had a help line for advisers to call with a query instead of acting as Sherlock Holmes hiding behind dark corners the industry would be a better one.
While I do NOT agree with this increase, paying for the poor advice and resulting complaints of others, in the end I can’t undo this, and its a few bucks per clients, which can be easily passed on, or absorbed. If you can’t do either, you’re not running a sustainable business and are doomed regardless of this fee.
Great to hear, you’ll clearly have no issues with the other increased fees we are going to throw your way then. Looks like I’ll be able to justify my bonus at your expense yet again this year.
Agreed with this comment and it’s one of the few that makes sense as well as takes in the bigger picture. There are many advisers acting like dinosaurs who can’t see their extinction coming. ASIC needs to be funded well and while it could be improved, that will only happen with increased funding. Who do you think pays for that?? We do. As we should. Get over yourselves and accept that you have a privileged position that you can walk away from anytime you wish to move to a more lucrative one. The truth is that too many have had it too easy for too long. Some actually believe they’re worth what they were getting, but in my experience many weren’t. Be grateful for what you have instead of grasping for more all the time – and hoping that everyone else will pay for your privileges – while you reduce the taxes they pay! Have you never considered that irony?
Revenue reducing, costs increasing, harder to do business, constant threat of potential litigation and of course funding an inefficient regulator. All we want to do is to help people, but what’s the point now?
this is just another blatant money grab
Lawyers with snouts in the trough.
Happiness is – funding the ‘9 to 4’ bureaucrat brigade
Seriously, one cost goes up $1,000 and you’re giving up… Jesus, hate to see how you cope in a bear market!
I’m not sure this is the only thing in the past 5 years which has caused “holistic” issues. Everyone has a breaking point.
Exactly – AND we’re IN a bear market. What’s happend with bonds seems to have escaped all those too busy whinging to be aware of the bigger picture. This one will clean out a lot more advisers.
What is the point anymore?
The final nail, lets see how many advisers are left in April.
only $1500 per licensee..? that’s too cheap considering how much money they make.
You mean like the hundreds of millions that the largest licensees lost last year? Get your facts right mate. The licensee “profits” of all bank licensees and AMP and IOOF, etc are all public record. They aint been making money for a LONG time on the licensee side. Products prop up massive licensee losses.
Its not $1500 per license you idiot , it is 2400 per adviser. A licensee with say 100 advisers pay almost $250k
Self license are included in this .. so not all licensees make heaps of money – plus the dealer groups would just up your fees in any case.
Pass it on to clients then!
Outrageous – the banks create the problems, exit with their tails between their legs and everyone left pays the bills.
They need more money to give to their senoiur staff to “manage their tax affairs”.
Fee for no Service? ASIC thought the RC was a how-to session!
Message to the 14 remaining advisers :
Pass on to your clients and tell them it is an ASIC levy you can’t absorb with all the other red tape costs…
In November 2020 ASIC releases Consultation Paper 332 on promoting access to affordable advice for consumers. Here’s a suggestion ASIC – dont increase the fees you charge Finanical Advisers at exponential rates!!!
Fine, no problem but stop forcing advisers pay FPA, AFA, TPB etc.
This is the problem when you allow a government department to write a blank cheque on their costs. It can be anything they like and we’re required to pay if we want to stay in business. What’s more, as more and more advisers leave the industry the costs get shared by fewer people and so of course the costs go up. It is a perfectly foreseeable consequence, but a completely unjustifiable one. We are paying for ASIC to run recovery actions against corporates, but any money recovered does not seem to offset our fees. So it is just one way traffic – they rack up the bills and we pay.
As for saying it is a user pays system. Bollocks. ASICs mandate is basically consumer protection. We are the subject of their regulation, not the consumer of it. The consumer is the public and it would be far more appropriate for the tax payer to pay. All Australians are the beneficiary of a well regulated system. Just as they would be the beneficiary of good quality financial advice (if only they could afford it).
Apart from the ‘congratulations you get to stay in business’ aspect of these payments, what else do we get for our exorbitant fees? Why, after paying these fees do I have to pay again to lodge forms required under the registration? Isn’t that double dipping?
This whole system is an abomination.
Blame the current liberal party -they brought this system in.