Exactly.

Life coaching is nothing new, it has been there more than twenty years ago. From compliance perspective, I can't see how life coaching and advice can become one. I have tried and joined the meeting with the life coaches years ago. They are kind of touching on religion, belief and way of thinking. These cannot be regulated like advice. I tested on some clients and some of them have weird feelings.

Can you please tell me who pays the fine? Is it deducted from the fund so investors actually pay?

What I'm concerned about, is that with the new breach reporting laws (1 October), many advisers will be pinged under the new breach reporting legislation, as:
(i) All financial institutions they deal with are obliged to report a breach (i.e.the equivalent of dealing with compliance from multiple licensees, not just one).
(ii) the bar on what constitutes a breach is lowered significantly, and will be determined by the institution's internal compliance officers.
(iii) Practically, while the external licensee must be notified, the chance to contest seems highly limited, as the institution must establish the facts and report to ASIC within 30 days (or serious penalties apply). The clock cannot be extended.

I may have this wrong. If that is the case, I'd like for IFA or informed readers to explain how I have it wrong.

The number of advisors sitting on the sidelines, currently unregistered, but still sitting the FASEA exam demonstrates that the government still has a little bit of time left to partially turn this around.

I am surprised by the lack of impetus to come up with novel solutions, or at least discuss them. Tinkering around the edges of limited advice isn’t exactly going to do much.

There hasn’t even been a survey that I’m aware of to determine which bit of regulation has been the tipping point for advisors to leave. (Questions tend to be generalised and broad, - compliance or education). For example more detail could be :- annual opt in, ceasing of grandfathered commissions, Fasea exam etc.

I also haven’t seen any survey asking what advisors actually require their licence for. (Eg if they were pure life insurance, stock broking, accountants etc. A different tier of licencing with less compliance may be at least worth discussing).

Yep, they keep saying it, but they add more and more red tape. ASIC's latest guidance will add more time and cost to an SOA once licensees digest it, we have tmd reporting, ridiculously complex new fee consent documents.... and that's just the last 6 months

What do you expect when the requirements of continuing to be a "Practitioner" become more similar to Order Taking Accountants and Ambulance Chasing Lawyers - Fee based, Hourly Rates, Ideal Client, Political Career Agendas

Easy - you don't do an SOA - compliance issue solved. Next question.

like asking everyone to complete a qualifying exam before any study uplift? you are correct. they have set the benchmark high for truly useless and backward thinking burearocracy

Make advice more affordable to Australians they said....

Permanent ban would have been more fitting - you are either honest or dishonest - there is no in between.

Did she pass FASEA?? So much for integrity, ethics, and professionalism!

why is a reduction being celebrated? fraudulent conduct should not be tolerated in any profession

Reduced from 8 years to 6. What difference does that make, surely this career is over!!

Good question. I've found you don't get bonus points for talking about a persons values, life goals and purposes in a SoA. As an Adviser i would say from a compliance & SOA perspective having an understanding of a persons behavioral biases and understanding of why someone made decisions and what's important to them is worthless. I've just gone back to talking about "saving tax/ more Centrelink" in a SOA. Fantastic Goal for a compliance person reading the SOA but terrible for a client.

Yep, I was surprised it didn't show the basis of commission calculation, ie % rate.

Sadly the RIAA seems to be adopting the misleading and deceptive union super tactic of selectively using time periods and comparison data sets that favour its marketing message. Not very responsible behaviour.

I think there is some weight to this. But "life coaching" will need another level of learning and accreditation if it is going to have appropriate respect from the public. And the industry will see another exit of anti education advisers advisers who think their "20 years in the industry" as qualifying them as life coaches.

I'm becoming a life coach specialising in finance post 1/1/2024. Everything is general advice and no need for an SOA. Works a treat and achieves what ASIC wants because the advice process is simplified.

A nice plug for the podcast, a good one to listen to!
However, I'd love to see how ASIC views life coaching in an SOA and being able to quantify this in terms of best interests / safe harbor and if clients are unable to reach their goals, does that mean you become liable?