Marshan explains how the ongoing financial services reforms have stacked on top of each other to create the unwieldy situation the sector finds itself in, and why streamlining labyrinthine regulation could be an impossible task.
Listen as they discuss:
- How advisers can help their clients find purpose as they enter retirement.
- Why a new class of advisers shouldn’t be viewed as an attack on professional advisers.
- The importance of cutting down on unnecessary compliance steps that are no longer needed.
As a tenured financial advice compliance professional, I completely agree with Ben’s overarching premise. If you look at what the Corporations Act 2001 requires today, despite the law becoming increasingly convoluted and complex over the last 20 years, it is not as involved as first perceived in some areas (e.g. SoA – Main Requirements s947B). That said, we do have the Financial Planners and Advisers Code of Ethics 2019 in place which requires conduct above and beyond minimum legal requirements. Additionally, ASIC issues and maintains volumes of detailed regulatory guidance, while well intended and useful, can add to the overall compliance burden of AFSLs and their Financial Advisers. This is particularly so if a conservative, low risk appetite AFSL chooses to apply all of ASIC’s regulatory guidance. In part, AFSLs getting back to basics would be assisted if ASIC were able to be clearer in their updated regulatory guidance between their minimum expectations as related to the law and their view on advice best practice. This would then allow AFSLs to choose where on the compliance spectrum they wish to play.