The paper, flagged by ASIC commissioner Danielle Press in October, seeks to promote the delivery of ‘limited’ or ‘scaled’ advice.
“ASIC is keen to receive feedback on the impediments to providing affordable and limited advice that ASIC and industry are able to address,” the corporate regulator said when releasing the paper, titled ‘Consultation Paper 332: Promoting access to affordable advice for consumers’.
“Your feedback is vital for us to better understand the impediments on the supply side. It will help us determine what meaningful steps we can take to help industry better provide good-quality affordable advice that meets consumers’ needs,” Ms Press said about the paper.
ASIC said it was inviting feedback from the financial advice industry and “others with an interest in making affordable advice more accessible to consumers”.
“Feedback on industry’s experience in providing limited, digital and strategic advice is of particular interest,” the regulator said.
ASIC said as part of the paper it was seeking input into how example SOAs in its previous regulatory guides around scaled advice could be improved.
ASIC should consult the public, not just Advisers. Over the last few years we’ve received complaints from clients….about the fact they have to receive and pay for a Statement of Advice to do even the simplest of things. The fact that they have to receive FDSes. The fact they have to receive Opt-Ins (as one client put it just last week – if we’re not happy, we’ll stop paying and go elsewhere just like any other ongoing arrangement/relationship…why do we have to say we want things to continue??). The fact they have to receive PDSes, when in their mind they’re paying us for our knowledge, experience, expertise, and for the fact we’ve read the PDSes before recommending something!
Once they’ve consulted with the public as to what they want and how they want it (the ACTUAL public, not academics with a vested interest in things like FASEA, and not Industry Super Fund execs, and not lawyers who benefit the most from the ridiculous financial services laws) THEN consult with ACTUAL Advisers who have experience delivering and providing advice pre-FOFA, pre-RG146 AND post all the legislation that’s been implemented since.
One would think an enormous heavily funded government department would know, hire or consult with intelligence, not just blindly stabbing in the dark and hoping for the best. Politicians who support and fund ASIC need to wake up and clean up the entire mess. A regulator should regulate with integrity, ethics, logic and practicality – currently they’re like a bad episode of Yes Minister.
ASIC and FASEA would claim they do consult the public, via consumer groups like Choice & CALC. But that is the whole problem. Choice and CALC are no longer consumer groups. They have been hijacked by political activists. They represent the extremist views of ideological zealots, not ordinary consumers.
The real requirements of ordinary consumers have been ignored. The over reliance on fake consumer groups like Choice & CALC is why so much of what ASIC and FASEA does actually makes things worse for ordinary consumers, not better.
Oh the irony! A project to investigate the delivery of affordable advice, coming from the corrupt organisation that delivered ridiculous changes that made advice less available to everyday Australians.
Why is it when something isn’t going as well as we think it can…it’s corrupt?…it’s just getting some grassroots people providing more practical guidance on the issues at hand…Some decisions have been made a little too quickly and there have been some knee jerk reactions…granted…however eventually and hopefully the industry will find its equilibrium.
The fact that they have to ask advisers how to fix a problem that they, fasea, tpb etc created is the biggest joke ive seen in my 30 yearsun fp.
ASIC should simply recommend people take advice from their friends at BBQs
OR..let ASIC appoint its own advisers…they really dont wont us do they? Laws to write us OUT OF THE MARKET!
If ASIC thinks advice will suddenly become affordable if our SOA’s have less pages they are dreaming. How about the research, alternative strategies, all the paperwork required to give advice, even if it is scaled and then the optins fds’s compliance, ongoing education, extra costs to fund ASIC work. So they should look at the whole picture. Not so much the length of the SOA but the cost of bureaucracy is probably what makes advice unaffordable for those who need it most. I am just releasing a number of clients back to the product provider, because the trail has disappeared and these clients, who need it most, cannot afford the service fee. The future of financial advice, only available
for the rich!
More tied agency robo-product (reducing competition)
ASIC have poisoned the project before they have even commenced by assuming (wrongly) that consumers only want and need single issue, one-off pieces of advice. They conveniently ignore the 20% of Australians who have an ongoing relationship with a financial adviser, and the fact these clients have high levels of satisfaction. These consumers are suffering under higher costs and reduced flexibility in the way they work with their adviser.
This project is a thinly veiled attempt to force more draconian changes that restrict our ongoing income and make it easier for industry funds to flog their products under the false pretense of ‘financial advice’.
Something very wrong is going on with ASIC.
Standard 6 – You must take into account the broad effects arising from the client acting on your advice and actively consider the client’s broader, long-term interests and likely circumstances. How do you do this under limited advice model when you only address one particular goal/objective?
You can’t.
This is a nonsense…just another way to corner us into oblivion! Thers is another agenda here! Industry funds with its invisible noxious hand lurking in the background?
Accountants with a practising licence should be able to give financial and associated tax advice, without restriction. They know the family financial position and can refer to peers. Much like a G.P.
They can given financial advice provided they follow the law, which at the moment requires them to complete and SOA and 20 to 30 hours of research. Realistically financial and tax advice are as different as getting my blood pressure tablets re-filled when the GP rips off Medicare and getting my Prostate removed.
This is what accountants don’t understand — no one has ever stopped you from giving financial advice, you just can’t make it all client directed like most accountants do.
What does a practicing licence mean ? Accountants duded themselves advising people with $10,000 to commence a SMSF. As a rough estimate, I would say that over 90% of accountants I have spoken to (who do not have an AFSL) know zero about financial advice.
Give this guy a clown suit and a job at the local circus…
Shortening a SoA is only going to lead to advisers earning less income, that’s not going to help!! Lets get rid of the regulation overload and most of the regulators and we’ll see advisers being able to deliver affordable advice.
Isn’t the whole ‘limited afsl’ was to cover this!!!
Tell asic to sit in their box and regulate on corps act
Leave advice to the people on the ground
Not these pathetic money hungry associations they are as weak as a wet paper bag and a regulator that has more employees where English is their second language
Industry is a total mess
Fasea is a comedy
Compliance is ambiguous
ASIC needs to be taken out of the equation. They are agenda driven and are part of this reason for this abysmal mess.
Can’t help but feel this is the opening the Industry Super and banks need to go digital and avoid the compliance requirements planners have to. The Liberal Government have overseen the death of the financial advice business run by small operators looking after mums and dads at an affordable price.
Exactly what the banks wanted to achieve from the Hayne RC.
“ASIC is keen to receive feedback on why they don’t understand the regulations they are in charge of enforcing”
So now we will have the regulator suggesting scaled and limited advice in conflict with the unworkable Standards in the COE requiring full analysis of not only the client but their family and possibly extended family position in order to prove the adviser knows every single detail that may exist or potentially may exist in the future before the provision of advice.
This is the most convoluted, mismanaged, hijacked and toxic environment possible.
It is a complete mess and the advisers are the fish swimming around the barrel with the lawyers looking in ready to pull the trigger.
No wonder the mental health of financial advisers across the nation is at a tipping point.
“ASIC is keen to receive feedback on the impediments to providing affordable and limited advice that ASIC and industry are able to address”
Adviser Feedback: It’s not possible. You should know why ASIC and the fact that you don’t is staggering. It’s almost as if you don’t understand regulations. Maybe start there?
Headline should read: ASIC acknowledge that affordable advice is not possible under current regulations and is keen to receive feedback on what regulation changes would reduce costs.
Danielle Press is immediately compromised as her recent relationship and involvement with Six Park will skew her bias toward robo-advice models as being the way forward to deliver ” affordable ” advice.
You just watch this space to see how this develops into a push to benefit her previous colleagues.
ASIC cannot be trusted to deliberate on anything without bias as they have secretly gone about their involvement with FASEA and the 2 Griifith University academics regarding the Code of Ethics and their very close relationship with CHOICE. On top of that, ASIC’s completion of Report 413 on Life Insurance was manipulated to achieve a desired outcome.
Now the 2 top ASIC executives have been compromised with one leaving and Shipton standing aside because ASIC have paid his own personal taxation advice expenses.
The reputation of the regulator to assess a position without a pre-planned agenda and bias is non-existent.
Sorry ASIC but I won’t be able to respond as my Fee Disclosure statements according to you are defective because I left out a promised Christmas Card for a client and I’m currently writing to clients from 2013 onwards saying Happy Christmas for 2014 asking if they want a refund. My next job is to work out the fees required to be disclosed for the client that signed 3 pieces of paper saying they wanted to pay me for work but they started paying a fee in August and it’s now November, so let me just manually work that out for the FDS.
No doubt, ASIC’s attempt at scoping advice will create the need for at least 1-2 additional documents where the client will need to sign indicating they understand the advice may not be in their best interest blah blah.
ASIC are the totally hypocritical here. They say that they want advisers to be able to give scaled advice, yet many of the cases they’ve prosecuted seem to be around cases where limited advice was given and that has deemed to be unacceptable because aspects of the clients perceived “needs” werent addressed by the adviser. Cant say we support scaled advice & then smash advisers for providing scaled advice to clients.
deal with it
Financial Planning is a complete mess with too many elitist Planners having too much to say on the direction of FP.
I can not believe the industry has allowed FP advice to be in such a state where those that need advice are unable to afford because of the ridiculous amounts of paperwork and regulatory requirements that its just not affordable help these people.
Unless they’re prepared to pay a hefty fee to cover your costs to execute on all the requirements that serve no one other than regulators, these clients get turned away and cannot get advice.
reduce the paperwork, be clear on what ‘doing the right thing’ for clients means. make sure that the client needs are met, charge accordingly and move on – a 120 page SoA serves no one and no one reads it
Absolutely spot on. Pay a licencee in excess of $30kpa in fees – they use these to nail us with nonsensical ASIC compliance. eg: have simple alternative lifestyle client couple in early 60’s. Have super because I gave right advise. They pay $1K each to get Govt co-contribution of full $500 each. and pay me $225pa fee. Advice meeting each year – 2 page file note, 2 page update. This year audited. 2 hour meeting with auditor followed by 7 hours doing 8 page file note, 12 pages of product comparison, 2 page contemporaneous file note and 2 page letter to client explaining – this was in their ‘best interest’ At a minimum rate would cost them $2,025 for all this. NONSENSE
What absolute bullshit
Not really.
Industry help to Providing Digital Advice.
Here we go, another ASIC stitch up.
Let’s get the Institutions and Industry Super to flog direct digital advice / Intra Fund Advice.
That will be the result of this latest stitch up from ASIC.
Disgustingly corrupt is ASIC
Disgustingly anti Real Advisers
Sadly I think you’re right. That said, clients will mostly gravitate towards a real person when making large life choices, such as retirement and inheritance planning.