The regulator’s cost implementation recovery statement, released on Friday, revealed that ASIC would seek to recover $40 million from licensees providing personal advice to retail clients in the 2019-20 financial year.
This amounted to a flat fee of $1,500 per licensee, and $1,571 per additional adviser under the AFSL, ASIC said.
FPA chief executive Dante De Gori said following a 22 per cent increase in levy costs for licensees two years ago, a further 38 per cent rise was unreasonable and not helpful to advisers already struggling to service clients amid rising regulatory costs.
“No matter which way you look at this, it is excessive at a time when financial planning professionals are working hard to help their clients through extraordinary circumstances,” Mr De Gori said.
“Financial planners themselves are already under tremendous pressure to meet new education requirements, await critical outcomes on the FASEA extension from an unpredictable Parliament and overhaul their business models to meet regulatory requirements.
“As small businesses, financial planning practices also face the challenges that COVID-19 has created for the wider SME sector. ASIC’s fee hike does nothing to support them or their clients during this difficult time.”
For licensees that provided general advice only, ASIC would seek to recoup $829,000, at a cost of $813 per licensee. For those providing wholesale advice only, the regulator would recover $245,000, or $155 per licensee.
For insurance product providers, including AFSLs with a licence to deal in life insurance products, ASIC’s levies amounted to $14.4 million.
This amounted to a levy of $20,000 plus $2.78 per $10,000 of revenue over $5 million, according to the statement.
In addition, ASIC would recover $5.85 million of supervisory costs from “entities subject to close and continuous monitoring”, or deposit taking institutions with over $100 billion in deposits or more than 1,000 authorised representatives.
This would amount to a levy of $1.17 million per entity, ASIC said.
ASIC would also recover $1.6 million in costs to regulate MDA providers for the financial year.
Keep going ASIC. when there are no advisers left hopefully you can turn your attention to wiping out all the dodgy accountants, mortgage brokers and bankers out there. That should be mission accomplished. Dodgy lawyers rule!
Money for jam for the blood sucking lawyers. That’s ALL this is. The unethical legal industry will be Australia’s largest sector in a few more short years. But try getting those thieves to do an ethics exam hahahah
I can’t afford FPA membership and ASIC levy. Had to make some choices and FPA went. Easy decision really, considering I asked the FPA to raise this 2-3 years ago.
Only two years too late. Has this guy been asleep at the wheel? The FPA has contributed to this, by siding with large insto’s in return for a $60,000 payment annually and a list of members names. They continually for years blamed advisers when dealer groups, senior managers and large insto’s have reaped havoc and operated with impunity. To support the FPA really does send a message that you’re happy for over regulation and Government intervention to continue. Stockbrokers and Financial Advisers Association $550 + and TPB rego. FINSIA $550 plus TPB rego. Plenty of other options. Wake up please, we can’t continue doing the same old same old.
The supply chain problem of recruiting additional advisers to the industry is creating cost pressures on the incumbents.
This fee is starting to get out of hand. What will it be once the advice industry shrinks? $10k per adviser?
We are paying more fees so ASIC can introduce even more compliance & regulations.
Great to hear some noise at last Dante.
This problem however could have been curtailed 2 years ago with FPA support.
Small practices with only 2 ARs paid $10k last year and in fear of what will drop this year.
All this cost for a body that basically does very little for those who are paying the toll.
PII $30km,
annual financial audit $8k,
external compliance monitoring $5k,
AFCA, TPB, etc.
All this while the cost of rendering advice is supposed to get cheaper.
Moving in the wrong direction for that.
…is there any doubt Left that ASIC are trying to starve us into other occupations and out of this industry….
that’s their end goal.
FASEA Standard 7.
” You must satisfy yourself that any fees and charges that the client must pay to you or your principle and any benefits that you or your principle receive, in connection with acting for the client and fair and reasonable and represent value for money for the client.”
It’s nice to know that these parameters obviously only apply to financial advisers and not those who govern them.
So advice fees are heading north again to the detriment of clients that need financial advice. While we fund ASIC lawyers that want to pick through a 80 page SOA to see if there is a way to prove no best interests, without consulting with the advice or client about their experience.