The suggested policy change, which proposed financial advice regulation should occur through individual registration and oversight, rather than through AFSLs, was one of 19 recommendations the FPA made for policy reform in its five-year horizon plan.
However rival industry bodies AFA and AIOFP raised doubts around the timing of the FPA’s advocacy, saying the change would be disruptive to practices already dealing with immense regulatory transformation.
FPA chief executive Dante De Gori said individual registration is an “innovative concept for financial planning but not for other professions”, adding licensees continue to play a crucial role in developing, training, educating and supporting advisers.
The body has said that the need for licensees will continue under the proposed move, to provide business development services, technology, education and many other services to give value to financial planning services.
“Removing the AFSL requirement for financial planners won’t change this,” Mr De Gori said.
“The AFSL does not make the planner, just as the hospital does not make the doctor, nor the law firm the lawyer. Individual financial planners are the ones who provide financial advice and the regulatory system should focus directly on their professional qualifications and behaviour.”
Mr De Gori stated the body has targeted lowering the cost of advice and making it more accessible by reducing regulatory duplication.
“[Individual registration] should not be confused with self-licensing or individual licensing under the existing AFSL system, which would still result in a duplication of regulation and unnecessary costs for financial planners,” he said.
“licensees will continue under the proposed move, to provide business development services, technology, education and many other services to give value to financial planning services.”
– dont need business development.
– can source technology directly from provider and use whoever you want
– education can be sourced from outside providers.
What’s the benefit of the licensee then?
Have the FPA announced themselves as the new disciplinary body yet? When are they going to come clean and give us the big reveal?
This has nothing to do with self licensing or individual licensing and a lot to do with the FPA’s self interest and survival. I take it the missing cheque from NAB and Westpac is hitting the FPA hard? Just remember the FPA only puts the needs of itself first. No doubt, individual licensing and compulsory membership go hand in hand. The old TPB status trick. Are you going to fall for it again and be left with more regulation?
The FPA advocating is fraught with danger. The last time they wrote a plan it called for a Bachelor of Financial Planning from two Universities to be the gold standard. Those same Uni’s that had to apply and pay to the FPA’s owned education council. Just how is that FASEA working out for you?
I certainly don’t want to part of that self interest. [b]Make a stand, make a profession and don’t renew.[/b][b][/b]
AIOFP is a “rival” industry body, hardly…..
Expecting the same people (the FPA) who oversaw the mess of the last decades of debacles to get us out of the mess is wishful thinking at best.
If Accountants, Lawyers and Doctors don’t need a licensee then why should financial planners,
All of those businesses require PI and they are to the same high standard in regards to the advice or services they provide. Licensees have failed the client and planners time and time again only approving their own products on the APL requiring onerous SOA that are too lengthy so the clients don’t even understand it and ASIC does not require that they have even provided sample SOAs that they themselves state should be shorter and simpler so clients can understand but the licensee requires this lengthy SOAs just to cover themselves not what is I the clients best interest.
Licensees don’t provide anything we can’t get ourselves the AFA head claims they provide training and education well we can get that ourselves from any CPD provider guess what accountants lawyers and doctors need to do CPD as well but they don’t have a licensee
The AFA head claims licensees provide support that is a complete joke they hassle me on my investment choices for clients wanting me to buy when the market is high and wanting me to sell when the market is low. If I wanted help with an SOA they would charge me a fee on top of the huge amounts of money they already take from my firm.
Abolish licensees this will get rid of the conflict of interest they pose, it will reduce cost which will ultimately benefit the client
All we are hearing is reducing the cost of advice – FPA obviously not liking planners charging fees which is following closely after their obsession around trail commissions. Not to be trusted.
That is why the FPA & AFA should be merged, and then the board (and CEO) made of mostly practicing advisers.
Guys regardless of the past, the Policy Platform makes sense regardless of whether the timing is right or not. The Board of the FPA have made this recommendation – Dante as CEO delivers the message. I think it is cowardly to attack any Executive when they do the bidding of the Board and more cowardly to do so under “anonymous”. I would hope we are better than that. Lets just applaud what is a commonsense approach and get behind it.
Perhaps your support could be put down to your memberships fees being paid by a large institution with a discount thrown in? We saw your members at the Royal Commission and it wasn’t pretty and I don’t want those individuals advocating on my behalf.
I have seen plenty of people called “Douglas” at the Criminal Courts and that wasn’t pretty either.
Before you reply that it’s ludicrous to blame all people called Douglas for the behaviour of a minority of aberrant people called Douglas, think about how ludicrous it is to blame all members of an association/occupation/ethnic group/sports group/community group/nationality/suburb/skin colour/gender/religion for the behaviour of an aberrant minority of people with those same characteristics.
So he is calling himself innovative now? This is not innovative. Far from it. It feels like it is more of a populist concept.
What would you expect from this know nothing total oxygen thief!
It is just so abundantly clear that the FPA wouldn’t dare suggest this when they were beholden to the large $’s provided to them from the banks & life insurers. Now the banks are/have exited the financial advice profession, the FPA is belatedly trying to represent the actual sector.
more likely trying to handcuff advisers to an institution. The old Tax Practitioner Board trick take two, and people are falling for it.
Proposal wont get any PI cover – so its just a drivel proposition
Pi cover may become less expensive. Insurance is based on risk. These new standards etc are supposed to be taking risk away. All the massive issues caused in our industry, the licencees were behind most of it! Take that conflict away, move towards professionalism, then see what the insurers think. Why knock it on the head so quickly?
“…rival industry bodies AFA and AIOFP raised doubts” – Have a look at AFA’s partnerships lists?!?! Lobbyists at work, again!! Is there anyone that doesn’t gorge themselves from the trough? AIOFP at least discounts institutionally owned, but still is being lobbied by owners of mid-tier AFSLs who like their gravy train!!
Dante has already walked it back from self-licencing to individual registration. Seems like some of the Partners have wagged the big stick!!
It never was self licensing.
Selective reporting by the industry press, compounded by misinformed comments from some advisers, compounded by deliberate misinformation by licensees with vested interests, has generated a highly distorted picture of what the FPA actually proposed. I suggest you read the original FPA document if you are remotely interested in the facts.
Dante is sounding better and better.
Yes, it is the best initiative that I have heard since planners were co-erced into an AFSL.
Arent they welcoming the debate?