It's very simple. Provide the client a statement of advice, and every time you do a SoA/RoA, you disclose your on-going fees. But now grandfathering has ended, "Opt-Ins" have to be changed to Opt-Outs, if small retail clients are to get any serious service support. Otherwise ongoing intrafund advice fees have to go. To have a level playing field, it is simply impossible to have both operating at the same time, without massive market distortion. End of story.

Not to mention now the soon to be legislated requirement to have clients sign yet another agreement so an adviser can get paid off the super and in some cases investment platform (thanks for nothing BT). Oh please, pleeeease can I get paid for my work? Letter of engagement, opt in, soon to be annual renewal, application stating advice fees will be paid from the super fund, ongoing service agreement. Give me a break. We should all just work at ASIC or their mates the ISFs so all that is required is to stick your card in the wall and the money drop out. It s a disgrace and the useless FPA and AFA are doing nothing about it.

FASEA was initiated by the Liberal / National Party and the legislation and all the time lines were set out before the government had even appointed the Board, before any staff were employed, and with very little funding.
Your option of going back to how things were just wont cut it. Things needed to change as there was no change coming from within. You accuse others of making decisions that benefit their own positions but that's exactly what you're advocating with a relaxation of educational needs & ethical requirements, which makes you a bit of a hypocrite...

Asic, Here is where to start to make thing simple. Get rid of the the words Scaled Advice.
This is regulatory Lingo and Advisers/clients don't use

Sure, its extremely frustrating. But ironically, the compliance is this strict due to companies like AMP and their previous 'advice'

"Blair Vernon, who stepped into the role of acting chief executive of AMP Australia after the ignominious departure of Alex Wade, has now been appointed to the board of the FSC, which hailed his “ability to create sustainable value for all financial services stakeholders” through “creative thinking” and “strategic insight”. Who writes this stuff? That is simply a piece of fiction - just ask the kiwi planners and AMP's kiwi customers how things have gone for them....

So everyone has spent an excessive amount of time studying and changing how they operate in order to be a professional only to be replaced with Robo advice as the Government now are saying people’s needs aren’t complex??? So which one is it???

"somebody is going to turn around in 10 years’ time and I’m going to get in trouble" - very true...

So AMP admits that their roboadvice is a failure as most clients wont engage with it even if and when it is operational (AMP failed to deliver any meaningful IT project to date), yet AMP terminated a whole heap of highly professional advisers, poaching their clients, now having to recruit in house advisers as it can't service the clients it poached.

Not that I expect this comment to be released as the IFA's editors seem hell bent on blocking everything I say lately but while we have a regulator running things, that is so biased to left its now become an absolute disaster, the enormous compliance burden advisers (and consumers indirectly now) will always be an issue.

The left are obsessed with treating people like 5-year children who can't think for themselves and who aren't responsible for anything they do so they do everything they can to pin all blame on the advisers for anything that goes wrong, or could even 'potentially' go wrong even - if it hasn't! You only have to look at Daniel Andrews behaviour the last six months to realise this mantra.

ASIC are an absolute joke, as are FASEA.

I'm so depressed about the future of this industry and my ability to continue doing work for my clients, I'm almost paralysed with fear now that every action I take for a client will now be judged as a compliance breach.

Perhaps Ms Metz should actually speak to Advisers - especially those who've been spoken to by ASIC. They come in hard and fast with all sorts of (incorrect) assumptions and accusations rather than asking questions about things they don't understand. What else would you call handing someone I know a banning-hearing demand based on an Analyst's incorrect calculations (gearing costs are tax deductible, Junior) and misunderstanding (just because someone calls their Fund "Balanced" doesn't actually mean it's a 50/50 growth/defensive split, especially when it's an industry fund with a 86/14 split); AND using 2007 guidance to state a recommendation is incorrect - by 2007 guidance standards not 2020!

A simple answer you will understand Mr Jones---I WILL NOT VOTE LABOR IF THAT IS YOUR POLICY

Listening Jane?

Wow, so blatant fraud = a $10k fine.

Seems commensurate / sarcasm.

Has he finished his Masters yet?

I use Astute Wheel for online fact finding, it's great and has just integrated with xplan. Get the guys at Astute to give you a demo.

For starters the risk of providing advice for a small fee and ten years later ASIC asking you to pay it back because you didn’t tick the right box about limited scope.

So a slap on the wrist?

Good to see that we are well on the way to a class based system of haves and have nots. I have, so no complaints from me.

My only fear is that this will lead to another Royal Commission where the have nots want a slice of the pie, will ASIC stand up for what we worked so hard for? Surely the ha e nots can’t have what we are entitled to.