The summary of actual levies for the 2020 year revealed ASIC will charge a minimum levy of $1,500 per licensee that provides personal advice to retail clients, plus $2,426 per adviser – a significant rise on the $1,571 per adviser listed in the regulator’s cost recovery implementation statement in June 2020.
ASIC commissioner Danielle Press told a Senate estimates hearing on Thursday that there has been a 29 per cent rise year on year for the cost per adviser.
She added that the royal commission had resulted in increased action, running up costs, while a number of advisers had exited their industry. Those two factors have also combined with a “lag effect”.
“There is a lag effect in the industry funding model in that enforcement activity and cost is current this year. When we recover those enforcement costs, when we’re successful, they are then applied back to the levy in future years,” Ms Press told a Senate estimates hearing on Thursday.
“But there is a lag effect that we do understand is affecting advisers. Unfortunately though, the industry funding model – there is very little flexibility in what we can do to affect the one-year number.”
“Right, because the parameters for that are set by the government, not by ASIC,” Labor senator Jenny McAllister interjected.
“They’re set by legislation. That’s correct,” Ms Press answered.
Similarly, ASIC had told another parliamentary hearing the week prior that advisers will continue to pay heavy levies until costs can be recovered from the larger institutions. The timeline of enforcement actions against those organisations made it difficult to recover the money ahead of time, the regulator said.
But Liberal senator Slade Brockman stated he and his colleagues had been inundated by complaints from advisers.
“There’s a feeling in the advice industry that the banks and other large institutions that have left the financial advice industry effectively left the smaller players carrying the can and then they’ve seen their fees increase significantly,” Senator Brockman said to ASIC deputy chair Karen Chester.
“Is there anything that ASIC is looking at that can ameliorate the increase?”
Ms Chester responded, “Unfortunately, the way the model works is it’s very difficult to carve one piece out to another. We are very cognisant of the issue, but the industry funding model is mechanical and it has very little flexibility in what we can do to make any changes.
“We will look to recover the costs of litigation that we are taking against the large institutions, when we’re successful in that litigation and that enforcement activity. That will then be applied to the smaller advice licensees in the future, but unfortunately that time lag is a result of the model, not a result of anything we can actually do.”
Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and the Digital Economy Jane Hume however rebutted the remarks from ASIC.
“This has been an area of the sector in particular that’s seen quite seismic change … structural change,” Ms Hume commented.
“But I think most importantly, the industry funding model that is imposed does have some level of flexibility and the discretion by ASIC as well.”
She also noted the 10 largest licensees providing personal advice have contributed a “steady share” of around 20 per cent of the total levies since the funding model had been implemented.
There will be a rolling review of cost recovery arrangements of the Treasury portfolio by the Department of Finance later in the year.




ASIC’s “Why not litigate”, or the full version “Why not litigate, we have an unlimited credit card from 20,000 advisers” was due to an old lawyer recommending them to be more aggressive in litigation.
A lawyer recommending more litigation. Fancy that!
In other words, this was heavily conflicted advice and taken up with no regards to costs. That cavalier attitude to other people’s money then extended to the top two people and lots more bonuses for more people.
I even a portion of the penalties (20%) were used to assist to fund the costs of adviser/licensee levies, then this issue would be a lesser issue. I would also propose another 10% be used to help advisers provide cheap advice to those in need and genuine financial literacy programs we would all be better off as a country.
The balance can still go to consolidated revenue and prop up the deficit.
This is remarkable. As an industry we continue to carry the can for legacy issues where former licensees (banks) and advisers that caused the issues, have now departed. How much longer can small business be expected to pick up the cost for others mistakes? Jane Hume has good industry experience but is yet to deliver any value.
Does Canberra actually believe the rubbish they sprout ??? The most pathetic and useless finger pointers ever.
ASIC it’s never else ( of course not )
LNP MIA Jane Hume, nope not us either we just keep adding most costs but say opposite (why don’t you believe us ??? )
ASIC AND HUME, “WOW ANOTHER LOAD OF REAL SUBSTANTIALLY VALID ADVISER COMPLAINTS, what to do ? TOGETHER, “ I KNOW LETS DO AS WE ALWAYS DO AND BLAME THE ADVISERS AND THE AFSLs.
Key point: ASIC or Government NEVER ACEEPT ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR BEING DISGUSTINGLY CORRUPT AND TOTALLY INCOMPETENT.
Beyond sickens by their actions !!!
What this article says is the Public service ASIC added by a liberal govt ( supposed to be a friend of small business) is making small business ( advisers ) pay for ASIC to sue big business . Lots of cynical finger pointing but all . Sound about right?
Phat bonus’ aplenty in ASIC, can we review and levy them for misconduct please minister hume ? Are you actually going to do something? Respect for IFAs if you shred a care.
So the advisers are bankrolling the litigation costs while in all likelihood any penalties imposed on the banks will go into consolidated revenue (and our costs will just continue to go up). Sounds fair to me.
Imagine this scenario:
The financial adviser provided an SOA that showed a client the investment they recommend would have annual fees of $15,710
12 months later, as soon as the financial adviser found out, they told the client the fees had increased to $24,260
The financial adviser said there was nothing they could do as their hands were tied
The client went to AFCA and made a complaint.
Would AFCA/ASIC:
1. Tell the client that it is bad luck, there are always risks the fees will go up
2. Make the adviser get the lawyers involved with the likelihood of having to reimburse the client and potentially face the risk of having ASIC ban you from working as an adviser…….
Danielle Press – the normal excuse of don’t know not being used instead, “computer says no”.
Why is she paid?
Haha yeah robo also robo advice…
Seems fair to me.
ASIC says “it’s not us”, the government says “it’s not us”, meanwhile sweet FA gets done about fixing any of these issues. I’d love to have Jane Hume’s job. You get paid good money yet seemingly aren’t burdened by any decision making responsibilities or accountability for anything. How long does Jane intend to carry on with the “I’m new in this job, so the party doesn’t listen to me” mantra as it’s getting pretty tiresome?
MIA Jane doing loads of absolutely nothing to help.
Hang on she did say something about it’s crazy having 9 overlapping and conflicting Regulators, a Regulatory Gordon knot to cut and a promise to reduce Advice costs.
Somehow that = 160% ASIC levy increase and complete 2nd layer AFSL compliance FDS at platform level.
Utter madness are LNP and ASIC.
Fffffffaaaaaaaaa########klkkkkkkk!!!!!!!!