Speaking in an Implemented Portfolios webinar on Friday, The Fold Legal director Simon Carrodus said regulatory attitudes towards the best interests duty had become too focused on cost above all else, when higher cost products could actually be more in line with a client’s objectives in some cases.
“Saying every client should be in the cheapest product is like saying every person in Australia should be driving the cheapest car,” Mr Carrodus said.
“Some people need to tow a boat or lug heavy equipment, so they will end up in a big van; a university student that hasn’t got a lot of money and wants to live on the smell of an oily rag will end up with a small, cheap car.
“People have different objectives and ignoring those objectives and placing everyone into the cheapest product is like we’re back to where we started – it’s the same outcome as what caused all these ASIC investigations, which is this cookie-cutter advice which is not tailored to the client.
“A lot of clients have more sophisticated and complex needs, so by trying to place every client into the cheapest product, you’re probably failing the best interest duty.”
Mr Carrodus added that the focus on low-cost products was mainly being driven by “gun-shy” compliance staff at large institutions who were overly conservative in their outlook because of remediation penalties incurred in the past.
“This is not adviser driven, it is driven by compliance teams who are gun-shy and conservative after the royal commission, who had to throw a lot of financial resources to remediation and now want to cover themselves,” he said.
“The intentions are good, but the outcome can be poor if you have a client with sophisticated needs who isn’t having those needs met because an adviser is complying with a direction from their compliance team to always recommend the cheapest product.”
Mr Carrodus added that as long as the adviser was clearly able to document why a more expensive product was in the client’s best interest, recommending the product would not go against their compliance obligations.
“Anyone that says you can’t switch a client to a more expensive product in absolute terms is wrong, there will always be cases where it’s possible,” he said.
“If it’s a few basis points more and the client is comfortable paying that extra amount to get a product that best satisfies their needs and objectives, that is in their best interests.”
The issue here is not compliance staff saying client must be in the cheapest product, but rather the advisers not being able to justify a benefit to the client for a more expensive one. It is always easy to blame compliance rather then look at what you are doing and change.
Some of the best investment funds are among the cheapest funds so compliance may be on to something here as it is difficult to justify most expensive investment funds.
Where gun-shy compliance managers are causing serious harm is by making it very hard to give advice through excessive compliance. This means that many advisers won’t do anything but the basics as everything else is too hard. One reason many advisers are leaving their large licensees.
Compliance managers aren’t gun-shy. The threat and danger for the licensee and the excessive compliance demands from the powers that be are very real.
Hear hear.