Everyone has an opinion, and some people feel compelled to speak out. Share your views, opinions and insights with financial advisers accross Australia today. If you'd like to write a blog or to submit a letter to the editor please contact the editorial team on [email protected] or call 02 9922 3300.
"Overpriced" plan at $3000.
The value you should be able to provide someone with a plan for $3000 should well and truly exceed the cost. It's not overpriced if both parties are winning.
If plans are being written that punters can't understand - then they're failing consumers and legislation.
Opt-in could and should be applied at product level. If they don't receive confirmation from an adviser within 2 years of another ongoing fee, fees are stopped. Trail should never have been grandfathered.
FDS should be a click of a button with the right tools in place
Jealousy creeping in guys
Fair play to them good to see a dealer group that actually cares
The FPA has quietly gone about it's dealing with Government to manipulate legislation that means it is impossible to leave these bodies. No doubt recent education reforms coming into play from 2024 will allow some leeway for continuing professional development, with evidence being membership of an association. Much like TASA requires membership as evidence of CPD. So much like the CFP logo, much like their 3 year opt in release, (soon as your membership lapse, you're in breach of the 2 year rule) much like TASA they have clearly stiffed advisers and forgotten whom they represent. Hear any of the big banks do something wrong these days and the solution is always membership. We're being screwed again.
I'm sure many would agree with you. However most advisers are seeing this as a revenue grab from the Government. Increased licensing and rego costs are impacting a lot of industries at the moment and for 18,000 planners to be paying $400 for rego, another $200 for their business and $200 if self licensed, is at least another $7.2 million in the Government pockets.
Bill Brown the future won't sustain advisers that don't offer clear advice. Your SOA's may well "suggest" that IP "may" be tax deductible, but I think we can all be sure that your conversation with the client says that IP is tax deductible. As a client I wouldn't want you to be paid anything for only doing part of your job. If you are to be paid as an expert then your advice should portray that expertise, and being vague on the tax deductibility of IP premiums for a particular client is not expertise at work. Risk specialists require many areas of tax expertise - such as the effect on TPD payouts held inside super - so get with the program Bill and accept that experts need to be qualified and registered. Doctors do, surgeons do, physio's do, Pharmacists do. Financial advisers do too.
Why do we bother with these irrelevant industry bodies. Oh I forgot compulsory membership!
Can you please clarify this paragraph? It does not make sense:
In a statement yesterday, the Senate economics references committee said it has received 1,300 responses from the public, including over 700 public responses.
More compliance means more training courses to sell. So why would FPA, who lives off training course revenue, not want more compliance?
Maybe a conflict of interest between the members who pay the fees and the employees who work for the organisation providing paid training for members?
a good start would be to repair the damage done to those effected by poor culture, Not more rules and legislation. Once the banks etc have paid the damage caused they might think twice next time. Otherwise it will another case of the banks keep the money they illegally consumed and continue on with their business and culture.
Once again let down again by the professional body that was supposed to be looking after our interests. When the TSA nonsense first started I objected to both the AFA and my licensee that merely because I suggested in an SOA that the clients contributions to income protection insurance “may” be tax-deductible, or that insurance premiums placed into a superannuation vehicle which did not contain investments “may” also be tax-deductible, in no way did such “advice “ make me tax advisor as determined by the TPB.
Brett Walker has let that the cat out of the bag – he actually read the legislation, unlike the AFA, apparently. I don’t recall either the AFA or my licensee telling me there were five elements of tax advice that must ALL be satisfied in order for AFSLs ( and their advisers ) to come under TPB supervision.
Did someone think that by saluting the TSA legislation and pledging obedience and compliance , brownie points could be earned with the Govt. Just like waiving through ASIC Report 413 , without challenge.
Risk advisers do not put themselves out as tax advisers, and it beggars belief whether any of my clients “can reasonably be expected to rely on the licensee’s financial advice for tax purposes”. Remembering of course that my advice is legally the advice of the AFSL.
The AFA should URGENTLY apply for a reversal of this situation, and remove the burdensome TSA training levelled on risk advisers. For God’s sake, there is even a Training Unit on calculating the Capital Gains tax payable on the sale of an investment property in current TSA “Training”. That’s a job for accountants !
There are legitimate reasons to not use a Retail Insurer that has not been around for long, and has had multiple ownership changes in a short space of time. There's no slight in that all.
A brilliant and simple statement of common sense fact!
Thank you Anon.
Seems that way. Every new adviser that joins Elders means a new IFA article
yes it's called advertising revenue.
Consumers cannot purchase powerful pharmaceuticals based purely on advertising or the internet. They have to get a prescription from a professional who understands the products and the specific individual's situation. The consequences of a non advised consumer getting it wrong are too great to allow consumers to purchase directly without professional advice.
Exactly the same principle should apply to life changing financial products such as superannuation, life insurance and disability insurance.
So now we are announcing every time an adviser moves?
Isn't the financial security of insurance companies regulated by APRA ? They're rated pretty highly on my system. Oh wait. Perhaps Chris, it's a dealer group rated system with some dealer group intervention in there. Pay me $400K and I can make a lot of things look poor as well.
it's a real slight on this industry when a guy comes out and states that payments that have the potential to influence an adviser should be banned, and so many kick him down. Forget this my dealer group is so large you're paying for shelf space argument, that's just crap. If you want to provide advice and for once deflect the corruptness away from individual advisers we should be applauding this guy. Lack of action will result in over regulation.
100% - Provided the Royal Commission includes all of the Industry funds (or all funds really), I'm all for it. If not, it's not going to solve anything
The more I see the work of the FSC these days the more I agree with a Royal Commission.