Speaking at an event in Sydney on Tuesday evening hosted by communications agency PritchittBland, Ms Levy said she waded through multiple comments on news articles critiquing her work as the QAR reviewer.
“I found them compelling. I couldn’t stop,” Ms Levy said with a laugh.
Comments she found particularly intriguing, she said, include those accusing her of not paying enough attention to the reasons behind the current regime’s existence and the overwhelming “prescription” in the regulatory framework.
“I think in large part this [the comments] is because of the proposals paper and the kinds of comments that I make in forums like this. What I want to say is that what I have recommended is based not only on an intimate knowledge of the existing regime but living through all of the events that have led to it. The crimes and misdemeanours,” Ms Levy explained.
This, she noted, does not mean that the regime should remain as it is.
“The financial services regime has been built in response to a series of scandals that have harmed consumers. Each reform is built on the other and each reform is followed by yet another scandal event that leads to consumer harm,” Ms Levy said.
“What we do have now though, I think, is a broader base of consumer protection law. We’ve always had misleading or deceptive conduct laws, but I think the courts and ASIC are willing to really apply them to financial services and advice,” she added.
Citing higher penalties, more active regulators, and the incoming Financial Accountability Regime, Ms Levy said these form “a very sound basis” for the industry to move away from the “prescription that we have in the current law”.
“I understand that in some respects what I have recommended and what you haven’t seen yet is quite hard, and I think, I don’t know, but I suspect that might be another reason why the report hasn’t been released yet,” Ms Levy said.
“In saying that, I am not encouraging the Minister to hurry because I am enjoying this break.”
Ms Levy also told the event that modest changes would not make financial advice widely available, hinting that her report is quite detailed and demands comprehensive reform.
I’ve always believed this investigation was intended to provide a basis for giving Industry Funds an exemption to sell their product without having to meet the requirements that Financial Adviser do. There are a number of ways that could be done, for example, an exemption on scoped advice and robo advice. As far as I’m concerned the proof will be in the pudding. I’m sceptical of the whole process. There has been no end to the red tape for advisers and there doesn’t seem to be an end in sight, even though people as sprouting otherwise. As far as scandals are concerned they are few and far between now and what I see pop up now are the result of matters that are many years old.
“In saying that, I am not encouraging the Minister to hurry because I am enjoying this break.”
We have all been very patient and would actually encourage the Minister to hurry up please even though you are still enjoying your break Michelle…
Ok Ms Levy if you are truly reading the comments I ask you this. How did you get an intimate knowledge of the existing regime when those who have been the most affected by the huge layers of poor regulation, clients and advisers, are not properly represented. Choice doesn’t represent the views of advised clients, and the FPA/AFA are conflicted in their representation of advisers. How many real advisers and clients did you speak to? You have stated that you were surprised by the comments and results of your survey of advisers, what did you do to investigate these views further?
Damn…seems I missed my opportunity to put forth an opinion to Michelle on what I’ve seen the last 15 years.
In the hope I still might get some hearing, I want to say that while human beings are involved there will always be ‘someone’ that does the wrong thing.
We have leaders of numerous countries doing exactly that at the moment so you’ll never stop it BUT what’s been done to this industry since 2013, focusing on the 2%; has now seen 55% of its advisers leave. Where does that pass any pub test? It makes no sense at all.
You cannot remain focused on the scratch on your windscreen when you’re driving your car down the freeway at 100kms/hr YET that is exactly what ASIC and the former Govt has done. It’s gotten to the point where this industry is now completely dysfunctional. Using the above example provides the very same result of what’s happened in this once thriving industry – its crashed. And BADLY.
Put the harsh penalties in place but you can’t grind an entire industry into the ground with compliance and process hindrance to stop 2% when 98% of us (of those still left that is) aren’t doing the wrong thing. It’s a madness approach to anything in life.
Its time this industry, ASIC and the Government started focusing back on the bigger picture (beyond those windscreen scratches) and what great work advisers do.
Levy and Jones may well be enjoying their break. But honest advisers are not enjoying the continued persecution and business destruction caused by failure to fix bad regulation. Consumers are not enjoying their inability to access affordable professional advice caused by failure to fix bad regulation.
But as long as Levy and Jones are having a relaxing time, that’s what’s important.
Sounds to me like advisers are going to be hit with a big stick ‘somehow’, most likely by being put into direct competition with industry super funds. Seems the only way to make advice more accessible in the eyes of a politician.
I am impressed with Ms Levy … her approach is refreshing. I have been an adviser for 20 years and I am about to consider leaving … I have the masters degree relevant bachelor degree and everything formal I need to stay on except feasibility … the compliance rope around everyone’s neck and the resulting third party interest that has created.. its now at the point where it has grown greater than its host LOL… we have industry super wanting everything … consumer groups arguing for greater compliance which as you would expect disadvantages the very consumers they are supposed to be representing… its laughable .. but that’s the modern times… well done Michelle but I suspect your work may be in vain though ..
The problem is she hasn’t lived through it as she states, nor have most people that comment and have an opinion. It’s just not the same from the outside looking in and it’s the reason why all the politicians and lawyers to date have not come close to sorting this mess out. I think it’s clear it’s not going to get sorted out anytime soon either. Nothing personal on Michelle as I’m sure she is very intelligent but I am 100% convinced that no one other than good quality advisers and their clients understands what is happening and the ways to sort this mess out. Unfortunately, our opinion is political suicide to listen to, thanks to the RC.