Having surveyed 200 advisers last week, M&A consultant and Radar Results principal John Birt said the Senate’s decision to throw out the government’s amendments to FOFA has caused many to change their long-term career and retirement plans.
In addition to the quarter of respondents that indicated an early exit from the industry, 15 per cent expressed their intention to sell their business, or that they were unsure about the future.
However, despite those looking for an exit strategy, 10 per cent of respondents indicated they intend to grow the business in order to meet the requirements.
The survey also found that advisers still maintain strong opposition to a number of aspects of the FOFA legislation, including 92 per cent who do “not agree” with the opt-in requirement and 74 per cent voicing displeasure with the need to provide fee disclosure statements.
Seventy-eight per cent said costs will now increase, with 86 per cent likely to spend more time on paperwork and 69 per cent intending to raise client fees to meet the additional costs.
Mr Birt said that financial advice should be made tax-deductible in order to assist clients now facing additional fees, “just like accounting and tax fees charged by accountants”.
Yeah David, the whole financial planning should retire immediately because of your bad experience. I got ripped off by an accountant who gave me bad advice several years ago, they should all retire too. Lawyers, mechanics, real estate agents, politicians, teachers, police, judges , public servants, pharmacists, specialist doctors et al. I am aware of bad experiences with one or more of them. RETIRE! In fact, let’s shut down the whole country and start a communist regime, that will solve our problems.
I congratulate the Senate for the late demise of the FOFA laws. My financial planner is a lovely bloke and the aura was enhanced by messages of new children arriving and the trips that his secretary was taking.
At NO stage did I get a written statement from him of the trailing commission that he received.
I’ve now ditched him for an industry fund. I decided on this action when one of my funds wanted to change their structure. He advised against it and selected a new fund with total fees just over 2%.
I’m taking 4% from that pension fund.
So the arrangement he wanted to organise had fees charged to me on MY money that would have been 50% of what I earn each year.
How the government can consider this is a situation that needs protection is beyond me.
The government must be beholden to the banks which now have a stranglehold on financial planning.
Back to the article headline.
Why should I care!
Lucky that advisers have enough money to retire early.