and while you're at it: also consider "roboadvice" and "barefoot investor/Scott Paper advice". All I want is a level playing field.

Best to target Centre Allianace & Bernardi in the Senate.

'Freddy FRYDENBERG’ is still there !! He was the political genius who mandated 60 % and when asked why stated “ Well it’s half of 120% “

great to be regulated by rocket scientists. Easy - stop using the term general advice and change this to general information.

Gee I wish Advisers were able to give advice as independent professionals!!! The real reason they cannot is:-
1, The advice service is captured by the product providers! Let me explain; there is no good reason why we need to have licensees at all; for the purpose of giving consumers independent impartial advice. The Whole Licensee framework is designed to give large product providers a distribution channel to flog their own products.
2, Large financial corporate's and licensee's have all lobbied and pursued government to ensure they control how consumers' consume financial services.
3, There are no financial advice professional bodies that have enough capital or the guts to pursue government to ensure that we truly have an impartial advice profession. The AFA and the FPA are merely noise at the edges, which do very little to advocate for professional independent advice. They are happy to take fee income from advisers, while trying to make it look like advisers are professionals?
4, The barriers to entry to be an Independent Adviser are too high and discourages exactly this. At around $50,000 to get a licence and $50,000 p.a to maintain it, is an absolute joke! not to mention the 18 months it takes ASIC to even give you the licence!
5, Lawyers!!! ah the Lawyers!!! They make so much money out of creating and recreating compliance documents and the like. If it is legislated that Adviser need only have 1, Adequate education and experience 2, A fiduciary duty to their clients 3, Be a member of a REAL professional body that is self-regulated you can then do away with all other barriers to entry and BS like FSG's, Fact Find's, SoA's, FDS's etc.
How good would it be if financial advice was not captured? then consumers could both receive and afford quality unbiased financial advice! Advisers would then be able to provide the advice they all want to; while being able to earn a much higher and better income from doing so!!!

Pretty simple really ASIC, it's either
1) Real Personal Advice and requires fact finds, SoA's, best interest, etc.
Or its
2) General Product Information - this is not Advice. It is product information and has nothing to do with the product being the right one for the person it is being sold too and they are not being advised.
General Advice ASIC = PRODUCT INFORMATION !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Looks like ASIC will eventually prohibit upfront advice fees being charged to super funds in the "interest of the member" but completely ignore the long term value this provides to members. Fast Forward 10 years and millions of people nearing retirement missed out on valuable advice and retirem broke all because ASIC wanted to save them 2 grand 10 years ago. The real agenda here is ASIC wants to cap upfront advice fees to $200 in an attempt to wipe out the remainder of retirement planning advisers just like they did with risk advisers. Wonder which industry super fund Hayne got his pockets greased by to make that recommendation?

Word is there are a lot of very nervous people at ASIC. Staff in senior positions may soon find themselves under investigation for deceptive and misleading conduct in relation to the closure of Dover.

It's about time someone squares off with ASIC. David V Golliath.... I think any small-time financial planner would be cheering for Dover. It will be very interesting watching this play out.

The only dilemma here is that ASIC needs to overcome their personal bias against financial advisers in favour or industry funds. Here's a novel idea -treat all advisers the same!!!! It's not that hard

Get rid of the conflicted intra -fund advice model, the corps act allows for a trustee to subsidise advice for all members if it is regarding their personal circumstances and only in relation to the fund. This is crucial that people understand the difference and that advice fees should only be charged when advice is being given

New Buzz words from ASIC , "Cordial Advice " ", be really careful about advice" . Good work people ,everyone is confused , so let's not do anything formal . Set up a few committees and have a Sydney based forum, a talk fest, public service like , if you like so that we don't have to do anything really .... a bit like we have been doing for the last 10 years , with your heads in the sand !!!!! Please don't make any rational decisions like define what is and isnt .

you better push for Intra fund "advice" fee for no service as well you and cut out the crap people can see through it just like they did with Labour just like they did with the mortgage brokers

so if someone decides to complain on twitter, or snapchat...where there is or isn't a presence by the AFSL, it is considered a complaint and run through the IDR? So....if the average Joe is aware of this and is seeking revenge by bogging the AFSL down in complaints...they can? Even if the complaints are baseless? really????
Is that how ASIC handles issues? Can I do that to ASIC on twitter?

A very well thought out and balanced article Paul, coming for an exemplary planning Professional, that's no surprise, well done.

This magazine should refuse to publish ASIC propaganda until James Shipton investigates the conduct of Bird, Greene, Macaulay and Mullaly on Dover.

Bird lies to the AFA to deny 410 advisers an extra month to find a new AFSL.

Why?

CFS are a wonderful platform and nothing but supportive,

Excellent article Paul. Very insightful and I believe you are on the money. In reality you are coming at the problem from a different tangent. The trick is to take the regulators and the myriad of associations we have with you.

Paul, I could not agree with you more.

You are not alone, as my Phd research completed in 2018 indicates engaged financial advisers want self-regulation by a single entity too.

The financial planning sector has a unique opportunity to identify leaders to help advisers take control of their own destiny in away other professions took decades if not centuries to achieve. We can learn form the mistakes they have made, because as you so eloquently stated it: "we would be in a position to define what it is we do and how we should do it; but here comes the rub – who would determine those standards? We have a number of competing membership bodies who I’m sure would put their hands up for this but the chasm between the various bodies is simply too deep to expect them to come together on this."

Further to the issue of research : although there may only be a handful of PhD qualified Financial Planning researchers in academe, lack of grants and funding for the research is where we as financial planning job experienced academics/researchers are hamstrung. Research costs money.

YOU are going to have a problem with comprehension in the exam. no one is jealous of you TURD

Professional Jealousy? of you? what for? you are the one trashing FASEA as a second tier exam what does that mean