With the ASIC industry levy set to rise more than 60 per cent, TAA has called for an exit levy to be imposed on the big banks, warning that those responsible for “some of the poorest behaviours” are avoiding paying their fair share.
“The advisers remaining in the industry are those who are committed to the profession, who are committed to their clients and who are building strong practices that can withstand the changing times,” said TAA CEO Neil Macdonald.
“Expecting these advisers and their clients to just keep paying ever-increasing costs for the sins of the past, largely committed by the big end of town, is unconscionable.”
TAA suggested an exit fee of as much as $7,400 per adviser for major banks and institutions looking to jettison their advice networks – a three-year multiple of the current levy, and one based on adviser numbers as at the date of the Hayne royal commission final report. They are also calling for the government to provide financial relief to advisers, allowing them to “pay a more reasonable amount in what is still a difficult COVID-19 environment”.
“We believe Treasury needs to take another look at this model and review the downstream impact of the levy on advisers and their clients,” Mr MacDonald said.
“The normal process before implementing this kind of burden would include a stakeholder impact analysis. That may not have happened in this case and there are now some unintended consequences.”
TAA said that while it supports a user-pays model, the original cost of $900 per adviser was “about right” in a normal market.
“What we have now is an abnormal market where the worst users don’t have to pay because they exited. They should not be allowed to just walk away from the levy scot-free,” Mr MacDonald said.
ASIC reduced the levy to appoint and remove an AR. A nice win for the large insto’s. At the same time significantly increasing the fees to apply for a license. (A loss for new independent planners)…. All fully supported by the FPA in their submission and response.
Let’s be clear here. There are forces at play that want to drive out or significantly reduce non aligned advisers, both at the ASIC level and bodies like the FPA.
whichever way you cut it, this is a mass “intentional” culling exercise folks!
Why should a business big or small be “Taxed” or “Levied” by government for choosing to exit what has become a commercially unviable business?
Because that business caused the damage that innocent others now have to pay for!
Because Josh Frydenberg, your big bank buddies and ASIC caused the RC, did the Fees for No Service and have both cussed these extra ASIC costs.
What actually sucks is ASIC knew for 10 years plus the FFNS bank Advice problem and did NOTHING about it. Now we have to pay for their past and present incompetence twice. 1st via general taxes and then again with these levies.
The banks should paying to clean up their crap themselves.
they should be as they created the mess – the small guys are left to carry the can!
Because they made it commercially unviable? It’s like spilling oil on the barrier reef, it used to be OK, but you need to pay for the cleanup if you made the mess