Only a few months after government was called to either “reduce or remove” ASIC levies charged to licensees, the corporate regulator has provided further clarity on how the costs are counted for, confirming that the advice sector is also charged for investigations related to unlicensed advice.
“Generally, costs are attributed to the industry subsector or subsectors where the regulatory effort is directed, based on the particular issues in the case. In the case of unlicensed financial advice, ASIC’s enforcement costs will be borne, at least in part, by the relevant financial advice subsector, if the misconduct is primarily in the nature of the provision of financial advice,” an ASIC spokesperson told ifa.
“ASIC’s role is to enforce the law, and this includes regulating the boundaries of permitted conduct.
“ASIC action in relation to unlicensed conduct in a sector is in the interests of the licensed participants in that sector because it maintains integrity and trust in the licensed sector and deters competition from unlicensed and unregulated competitors.”
In February, CPA Australia noted in a pre-budget submission to Treasury that the federal government had so far done little to reduce costs for businesses as the economy faced its greatest challenge since the 2008 financial crisis.
“The government should use the budget to announce the reduction or removal of various fees it imposes on business, especially small business. This will ultimately also benefit consumers who invariably pay for such fees,” the accounting body said.
“For example, the government should reduce or preferably remove fees imposed under ASIC’s industry funding model, including fees imposed on AFSL holders and SMSF auditors.
“Further, the government should remove duplicated fees where service providers provide advice or services that fall under multiple regulatory regimes, such as financial advisers paying fees to ASIC and the TPB.”
I googled ASIC and it came up with “Did you mean MUPPETS?”
It seems as though one would be better off NOT spending years studying; NOT spending countless hours following onerous compliance requirements that don’t benefit Adviser or Client; NOT spending tens of thousands of dollars on education; NOT spending hours a year for CPD requirements; NOT spending tens of thousands a year on Dealer Groups; NOT spending thousands a year on PI cover; NOT spending thousands a year on ASIC levies; NOT risk one’s livelihood and reputation at the hands of ASIC by giving licensed advice….and instead go to social media
Can you freaking believe it?? ASIC openly admits to a FEE FOR NO SERVICE !!!! But what will be done? Sweet FA!!! As if the regulator if going to punish itself for this hypocritical act…
Too make it worst, they have even said they have no interest in stopping social media influencers from continuing to give online advice which is even reported as deceptive and costing people money, so their defense doesn’t even stack up here.
…and social influences get paid to promote these products online….
Why don’t we all hand in our AFSLs so ASIC does not have sufficient funding to pursue us now unlicensed advisors
Yes total Adviser Revolt is required.
Get stuffed ASIC and Canberra Pollies
Last years ASIC levy equated to about one half of one percent of my revenue.
Most people on here have cost themselves more by spending time whining instead of spending that same time chasing business.
ASIC are useless, in every sense of the word, we have know this for years and years, it wont change, let it go, go and do something more productive.
Yet you seem interested enough yourself to take the time to read this article and spending as much time complaining about the whining? Hmm, seems a little ironic. ASIC should be held to task, after all we are funding them and any revenue they generate goes into government coffers with no real value for us.
The federal government can always ‘print’ the money to pay ASIC staff salaries, why bother collecting levies from the private sector unless you want to reduce the demand for the private sector’s activities? After all, Australian dollars originate from the federal government, we as advisers don’t issue the currency.
I’m thinking of setting up an Association just so I can stand up for advisers…cause no one else does. Does ASIC just sit around thinking up new ways to kick Advisers in the guts or what.
That makes no sense. The subsector of licensed financial advice will bear the costs of the subsector of unlicensed advice?
The whole idea of being licensed is that we accept the rules. So now we have to subsidise the regulator because they’re incompetent in enforcing the rules on those that are unlicensed and don’t accept the rules?
So if everyone who bothers with licensing decides to walk away (like all the banks) how does ASIC afford to regulate the unlicensed subsector of which we all become?
Will the last AFSL standing please turn out the light.
ASIC will effectively eliminate the need to regulate licensed advisers by eliminating the advisers. Well played ASIC. That’s like the police deciding to shoot everybody so there will be no more crime. Just like the stupidity of the police analogy, with no taxpayers the police cant get paid. With no advisers, the regulator is bankrupt.
I’m so close to walking away from financial advice in Australia.
ASIC are like a lawyer defending a criminal and sending the invoice to the victim! Talk about fees for no service!
What is everyone worried about? ASIC do stuff all about unlicensed advice, so the cost will be close to zero.
Almost correct:
ASIC does stuff All about Unlicensed Advice, in chasing the leads they get.
ASIC never stop it until the Unlicensed train has crashed.
Then ASIC spend a bucket loads of money chasing tails of lost millions and lost feet.
That chasing tails is very costly and Real Advisers FOOT the bill.
So what ASIC is actually saying here is that registered / licenced / qualfied “Financial Advisers” pay an ASIC Supervisory Levy which ASIC spend on pursuing people who are not even part of our profession. That my fellow advisers is akin to each of us unknowingly paying someone else’s bills. This amounts to deception and mismanagement of adviser paid levies on ASIC’s part……..which in my humble opinion is simple misappropriation of funds. One rule for us – one rule for them.
This is a fee for which I receive absolutely no service at all. Ironic, really, if it wasn’t so pathetic.
ASIC – you wonder why Advice costs so much. Are you that blind?
ASIC RORTS
Advisers paying double taxes for Government services via Taxes then Adviser levies for out of control ASIC.
Advisers being Legal Funders for ASIC yet Legal Fines go to consolidated revenue.
Advisers then pay for Unlicensed Adviser ASIC enforcement too.
At the same time ASIC kill Advisers with ever increasing BS REGS & Red Tape Costs.
What an absolute joke LNP / Frydenberg has imposed on Advisers.
Does anyone know why Frydenberg HATES Advisers so much ?
Unbelievable. Yet they have the gall to pretend they care about the cost of advice. Honestly its not even funny any more.
The best thing about that press release is that they did not mention one thing they would do to reduce the cost of advice. They did however acknowledge it was important and they knew it was too high.
This is absolutely atrocious. Its iniquitous for those of us who have done no wrong to have to pay for the wrong-doing of LICENSED financial service providers, but having to pay to clean up the unlicensed sector is just absurd. Surely its in the interests of Australian financial consumers at large to be able to turn to a licensed, trusted adviser, and therefore the whole community should pay to get rid of parasites. But no, just hound the conscientous, hard-working little adviser out of the market and let robos take over. Eat your heart out George Orwell.
By the way, my local federal member just happens to be Josh. I’ve already written to him to say he’s lost my vote.
Please also write to all your clients and explain why costs are going up and up, for useless REGS & Red Tape.
The last 8 years of Frydenberg / LNP hating Advisers is the worst Advisers have ever been treated.
ASIC are a toxic stain on the advice industry on so so many fronts, but ha! how good is this current drop kick government for allowing it all to happen!!! get real guys it is they, and they alone who can change these out of control regulators, i agree with Peter Johnson, it will only stop when the govt tell them too.
Frydenberg is as bad as ASIC.
LNP / Frydenberg, Ms Press and ASIC total clean out required.
Seems like theft to me. Stealing from the financial advice ‘bucket’ to fund other parts of ASIC. ASIC and the government are literally stealing from us.
Remember when ASIC actively promoted unlicensed advice, by allowing bookkeepers and tax agents to give covid release super advice? Shows what they think of us!
I’m flabbergasted. This is so wrong on may levels. Soon the straw will break the camels back. A warning to the regulator, be very careful, you’ve nearly broken us??!!
If the advisers in the UK or the USA had to put up with this rubbish, they would quit. This Fed Govt is inept
Unlicensed advice is just criminals right? We should not be paying for charging criminals
Agree – Criminals should be prosecuted by the state…
Its’ in the PUBLIC interest NOT the advisers interest…
What would be in the Advisers interest is that the regulator stops referring to these (unlicenced) criminals as Financial advisers…that would be a help!
Asic and the regulators have ruined the industry and need a huge overhaul.
Clients are so confused and bemused as to why there is so much duplicated documentation and compliance restraints in getting things done.
Direct translation:
‘We will penalise those doing the right thing, for those doing the wrong thing’.
This is all just so backwards.
Well said
The sooner ASIC gets out of our PROFESSION the better. They literally have zero idea about the difference between a small licensee, AMP and IOOF. In their head Im sure it’s all the same and trail Comms still exist, planners charge 4% upfront and sit back eating lobster everyday!
ASIC have just proven they are clowns as if we did not know that already know cue the red wigs and big yellow shoes…
Oh look its the liberal parties work attire!
“ASIC action in relation to unlicensed conduct in a sector is in the interests of the licensed participants in that sector because it maintains integrity and trust in the licensed sector and deters competition from unlicensed and unregulated competitors.”
Lets pull apart this statement:
– Unlicensed advice: ASIC just said people should “use their judgement” with regards to “advice” on social media (unlicensed advice). ASIC clearly don’t go after unlicensed SMSF advice from accountants. Jane Hume even had the same views. We all know you do nothing about unlicensed advice.
– In the interests of the licensed participants: Still waiting on anything ASIC have done in the interests of licensed participants. Excuse me while I have my client signed 45 documents to allow me to be paid, whilst you actively encourage Super Funds to check my clients SoA, and deem whether I am paid or not.
– Maintains integrity and trust in the licensed sector: Just like with Melissa Caddick (and others) where you publicly call the unlicensed advice provider a Financial Adviser. I thought that term was to be exclusively used for LICENSED Financial Advisers. How does that build trust in our industry?
– Deters competition from unlicensed and unregulated competitors: Al lI can see is a flock of emerging scams, poor investments and self interest social media twits emerging. How did Mayfair go? the Pump & Dump schemes, fake authorised reps, etc. ? No one is deterred. Bet you those Real Estate Agents were really quivering when you sent them a letter about covid super release. If that were an Adviser we would have been banned.
Great post. I was talking to someone yesterday about the hugely negative publicity financial advice has copped over the past few years, and how this can be combated. ASIC definitely do not do their bit!
ASIC’s argument might make sense if they actually did something to promote licensed advice as a source of greater integrity and trust. But they do the opposite. They constantly vilify and slander licensed advisers, while allowing unlicensed providers to do whatever they like. In their own MoneySmart website they encourage consumers to use unlicensed sources of advice, rather than professional advisers. ASIC is a rogue regulator. It needs a complete cleanout of staff from the toxic Medcraft/Kell era.
I would happily pay double the ASIC fee each year if they go after at least 100 accountants per state each year!