“There are 16,000 financial advisers in Australia, no matter what I recommend, no matter what reforms are made, there will never be enough advisers for everyone to get the advice they need,” Ms Levy said.
“Advice is episodic, so we need a diversity of providers and the obvious candidates are the people that look after our money or lend us money,” she noted.
Ms Levy said she wants to encourage banks and other institutions to use the information they have to advise their customers under her “good advice” model.
“We know superannuation funds are giving advice. I would be saying they have a responsibility to be giving helpful advice to their members and likewise banks, insurance and investment managers,” Ms Levy said.
“It is this idea of a whole range of different providers who are able to provide help and assistance, and personal advice along our life journey.”
She said that she is still in the process of coming up with the right definition of “good advice” — her current definition is advice that “would be reasonably likely to benefit the client, having regard to the information that is available to the provider at the time the advice is provided”.
“I am still formulating this, but it is something around the words fit for purpose,” Ms Levy said.
Ms Levy has been at the mercy of critics who have argued that her proposed watering down of the best interests duty to an obligation to give “good advice” would reverse the work done by the Hayne royal commission, following which all four big banks abandoned advice.
However, she argued on Tuesday that she is not walking away from Hayne’s findings.
In her Quality of Advice Review (QAR) proposals paper published at the end of August, the reviewer proposed that the “definition of ‘personal advice’ should be somewhat broader so it is clear that it applies whenever a recommendation or opinion is provided to a client about a financial product (or class of financial product) and, at the time the advice is provided, the provider has or holds information about the client’s objectives, needs or any aspect of their financial situation”.
Speaking at the summit, Ms Levy explained she sees her proposals as a much-needed reprieve for the industry after years of strenuous red tape and paperwork.
“The first step to think about in these proposals is that I am suggesting if an institution or a financial services provider has information about you or you are their customer, and they’re recommending a product or giving an opinion about it, then in my world they are giving personal advice. Now that is a big step up, that is a big consumer protection mechanism that doesn’t exist now,” Ms Levy said.
“I think we need to encourage banks and institutions, insurers and everybody to use the information they have to give advice to their customers. If you expand the range of circumstances in which you’re giving personal advice, you need a standard that adjusts to the circumstances and to the needs of the client and I don’t think the best interests duty does that. It doesn’t cope very well with being an employee at a product issuer, whether that’s a superannuation fund or a bank or an insurer.
“Then I thought about what can we have that is fit for purpose and so I am thinking about a duty to give good advice, because that is the word people keep using when they describe what they want and what they want to give,” Ms Levy said.
She added that: “Best interests duty has not gone, it will apply to somebody who is acting as an intermediary.”
“I think he [Kenneth Hayne] talked about a person who is acting as an intermediary, somebody who has assumed an obligation to act in your interest, well then, they will have that obligation to act in your interest.
“So, the financial adviser that is paid to provide personal advice will continue to have that duty,” Ms Levy explained.
“Bankers, home loan lenders and mortgage brokers, Ken Hayne recommended that mortgage brokers who are acting as an intermediary have a best interests duty. So that’s now part of the law. He didn’t make that recommendation for the loan officer in the bank.”
Asked whether if adopted, her “good advice” proposal would mean that the vast majority of Australians are receiving advice that is not subject to the best interests duty, Ms Levy said: “They will be having to get good advice”.
“Good advice is fit for purpose.”
Ultimately, Ms Levy said it’s the super funds, banks and other institutions, that would be responsible for ensuring that “good advice” is provided to their customers.
“And this is another important point to note here, that the person giving the advice under my good advice model, where it’s not a relevant provider… the person that should be responsible is the licensee, it’s the institution, they’re responsible for taking whatever steps that are necessary to give that good advice to their customer.”
I love Michelle, she is actually providing some great insight to support the banks. The banks have done nothing wrong. They are not doing any remediation. They have never ripped off clients. I do not believe Michelle has a conflict of interest at all. I believe she was employed to do a job well done!
Product transactions are episodic – advice is generally about an ongoing relationship. This where the Banks (a transaction business) didn’t fit with advice.
When legislation in 2001 prohibited provision of financial advice except through licensed advisers, the large financial institutions were given the major role in control of the financial advice industry. That proved to be a case of giving the foxes the keys to the hen house, resulting in abuses revealed in the Royal Commission. The new proposal to allow the foxes to give “advice” to the chooks (the long suffering investment public) is equivalent to removing the locks on the hen house. How long will we have to wait for the next Royal Commission? The reason there is likely to be a shortage of financial advisers is the shameful way the foxes shifted blame onto advisers who had been operating by the rules the foxes had developed over the 20 years prior to their decisions to exit the advice business when they realised the game was up.
Then dont call them financial planners. Call them what they are ie product pushers.
Wow, no guides, no laws, no Statements of Advice, no records, no file notes, how awesome is this for Banks. What the hell is happening here
First the banks plunder the coffers and assets of consumers and then walk away satiated. Now she wants to give them all the spoils just for walking back in. It’s like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank. Just goes to show that even a legal education doesn’t make you smart! But you will get paid!
Financial Advice & the legislation & regulation surrounding it is an utter basket case.
…..and Michelle Levy is actually making it even worse…if that’s at all possible.
why not send all these comments to Michelle Levy
Over to ifa being the article owner!
agree – it would be insightful to a non-conflicted committee, but there is no doubt whatsoever that after 10 months of listening to the QAR proposals from Ms Levy she has already had a black and white purpose from day 1 to allow and encourage product providers to advise with carve outs. Sending through any feedback on behalf of the Professional Adviser is a fruitless exercise, as has been the case over the last 15 years. The Govt. and it’s policy makers do not support and have never supported Professional Advisers. Why? There is no gain for them, only loss of tax revenue. When was the last time any Govt. bureaucrat sat down with a financial adviser and listened to our challenges and sought insight into where the pain points are??? They don’t care 1 iota now and they never have. Fact or negative emotional bias you ask?
This article is all the more enjoyable to read with “Benny Hill music” playing in the background.
Elderly client goes into bank for an administrative issue, bank teller notices substantial amount of money just arrived in account. Bank teller without finding out client’s circumstances pushes client to invest whole amount a one year term deposit. No consideration of what the clients needs are (in fact they needed access to the money to live off as they just lost their age pension). This happened last week. Imagine what will happen after ‘good advice’ comes into play!.
But surely putting it into a low return term deposit is better than the client going to the casino. Ergo, ASIC will no doubt see this as good advice.
A 3 year term deposit! Thanks to Michelle the QAR is like the gift that keeps on giving (to the banks)…
Sounds to me like mission accomplished.
The banks and industry super have deep enough pockets to play the long game and that is what they have done. I have to say congratulations to them on out thinking ASIC, Hayne, Levy, the government (both ALP and Libs), the FPA and AFA. I also have to say they are too good for me as it is time to give up financial planning because there is no future unless you can become one of the less than 8,000 which will be left once the ALP changes their mind on the education requirements.
I also find the use of the term ‘non-relevant’ interesting – “not bearing on the matter being considered : irrelevant nonrelevant information”. What a strange word to be using in this QAR context? Banks and super funds are thus irrelevant to the matter of QAR?
The point that is missed in this discussion on the definition of ‘good advice’ is whether financial product distributors are selling products or giving financial advice on products. There is a huge difference in my understanding of the two. All the scandals were mainly due to product sales being disguised as financial advice and my research showed this. The debate should be whether super funds and banks are providing financial advice on products or selling financial products or perhaps they are doing both? Then the next question should be should they be selling products, or giving financial advice on products or be doing both? How is the consumer going to distinguish between product financial advice from a bank and super fund from product financial advice given via an intermediary like a financial adviser? Is there technically a difference, if so, what is that difference? Should there be a difference, and how sit the consumer going to know or be any the wiser?
I agree with all these comments…why are you all anonymous? Put your name to your comms pans stand up for for advisers
didn’t happen when this all started and wont happen now.
Maybe Kenneth Hayne would like to make a comment regarding Michelle Levy ?
He’s too busy spending his money from the RC
…and we all thought she was actually doing well. Yep, bring back conflicted / bias advice as currently is the case with industry funds. Not about client, goals or strategies. Back to products and bias! Full circle…
Labor always loves a solid lobby.
FASEA and the transition to a profession a distant memory…
Death of a thousand cuts and going broke each day we work longer and harder.
This is a mugs game
Well then Ms Levy, please ensure every bank, mortgage broker and super fund employee sits the FASEA exam.
Will never happen and planners will finally see how played we got.
So a few questions Ms Levy. (A) If i am an employee at an insurance company and i recommend an insurance product that my employer owns, that is all i have to do as long as it meets the clients current needs? (B) If i am an adviser working for a licensee then i must review the market and select a product that meets the clients needs? If i am licensed under an insurance company licensee as an employee on a bonus for sales structured remuneration, then i have to do what? This is a complete hospital hand pass to the institutions to run riot again within the Australian financial service and advice industry… surely this cannot be allowed?
Wonder where the AFA, FPA are now, shouldn’t they be out there pushing back?
Too busy discussing a merger…aka…project ‘how do we stay afloat and save our jobs’
Fit for purpose – the appointment of Levy seems fit for purpose for what was required by Frydenberg and Hume to appease their mates in the big end of town
Michelle, thanks for confirming you do not (or most likely choose not) understand the implications of what you are doing.
1. Banks, fund managers, insurance companies, and super funds (maybe should have just said all the members of the FSC) will be able to ask a few simple questions, direct the client to one of their products, and claim this was done under the safeguards of “good advice”. They don’t need any professionals involved, as it can be done via a salesperson or even better, under the guise of “digital advice”. Instead of using financial advisers to help direct clients to their products, it is likely we will see new Westpoints or Storm Financial problems in the next 5-10 years. On the plus side, these companies most likely won’t be caught up in a fee for service scandal, as they won’t need to charge advice fees, they can just increase their investment fees.
2. Licensed financial advisers will still be required to jump through every imagineable hoop to prove they are acting in the clients best interest. No SOA and fewer legislated requirements, but watch ASIC/AFCA prosecute advisers for advice that in hindsight didn’t end well. Beware, we will need to keep more records to fight off these claims.
The end result will be that if an adviser recommends their client invests in Product X, they will be put under the microscope, but if a bank does the same thing it will be OK…
It all keeps coming back to the comment made in one of the submissions, that Michelle and the advisers shew has don’t actually understand what most financial advisers do.
“Advice is episodic”, says who? The vast majority of people who walk through my door are looking for someone they trust, for an ongoing advice relationship. The notion of episodic advice is ideological nonsense, driven by ASIC and treasury, without any basis in fact. Financial products should not be a set and forget proposition. The needs and circumstances of clients change, as do the quality and suitability of products. The notion of ‘episodic’ advice suggests someone walks through the door, advice is given and no-one follows up until the client walks back in the door 30 years later. The only beneficiaries of this negligent approach are the financial institutions. Imagine a doctor writing a script for a medicine with enless repeats, never to be reviewed. It would be ludicious.
Oops! Michelle meant to say legal advice is episodic!
Great analogy.
It keeps coming back to the fact that the people in ASIC and Treasury have no idea what financial advice is. They seriously think it is client comes in and we ask a few questions and then recommend an investment product – and then sit there and do nothing while we collect the fees.
Wonder if Ms Levy has taken the time to read these comments?????
About as much chance as Hume or big Josh reading them before the left the building.
the faster you understand that both Labor & Liberal are working together to support their mates. The liberals supporting the banks & labor supporting the industry funds. Australia is corrupt to its core and it is only when people realise this that we have any hope in change.
So we are back to where we started from with the gate being re-opened for the big offenders again.
This QAR should have been known as the POR…
Predetermined Outcome Review
Shame shame shame.
16,000 advisers now.
10,000 only in 2 years…most likely less.
This has been a calculated, planned and Govt sponsored cleansing programme.
I have never seen the abomination of incapable people involved in the power of creating the direction of this industry who know absolutely nothing about how this really works on a day to day basis.
It has been a catastrophic failure of Govt, Regulation and manipulated and discriminatory
legislation.
This is an utter stitch up.
I can’t quite believe what I am actually reading here.
The diabolical mess that banks made of product and vertically integrated “ advice “ was the root cause of the Hayne Royal Commission!!!!
….and now Levy wants to provide them with open slather to go hard at it once again!
This is utterly abysmal.
The financial advice space is ruined.
They appoint someone to fix it and this is what happens!!
Absolutely disgraceful.
I tend to view the RC was the opportunity to slander and eliminate the Retail Super (Banks, AMP etc and the Financial Planners that recommend them (and rollover Industry Super to retail) in one big move.
Many Financial Planners even supported the process helping eliminate Financial Planners – education standards, FASEA exams etc. Now it seems Ethics, FASEA exam, very specific Degrees and education, Opt-ins, Informed consent, Trustee approval of fees, etc etc are not required to deliver advice – or good advice anyway – thanks Michelle – who knew?
Question – what part of this industry has increased FUM massively since 2018 and had their competition dramatically reduced and tightly wrapped in red tap?
Before the QAR says or does anything further, how about advisers see some basic FDS and Conflicted Remuneration Register in the form of Michelle Levy’s fee, and her previous 10 years of FDS’s…
Levy by name, levy by nature…
Is it any wonder why adviser numbers are falling off a cliff? Anyone with half a brain would have rocks in their head to join an Industry which has a business model that continues to be relentlessly attacked, for no other reason than conflicted and self-interested power grabbers.
“Given what they have had to experience and absorb over a long period of time, we need to respect, protect and support the existing Professional advisers as a priority” – said no-one ever.
This was set up years ago and as an industry we walked right in and handed them the keys.
Now we all know that Michelle’s QAR is nothing more than an OR (outcome review)…Such a shame so many financial planners got excited over nothing!
What is plainly clear for all to see here is they (Levy, Jones, Hume and Co.) are getting desperate for adviser numbers, and the existing qualified advisers’ interests are not even on the radar.
When I read this article I shake my head, because what makes more sense to me is: If banks management and staff and super trustees are going to be trusted to give advice under a principle-based good advice model as proposed by Ms Levy, then surely degree qualified and non-degrees qualified independent and conflicted ASIC registered financial advisers should be permitted to be regulated under the same set of principle based good advice model rules. One set of principles based good advice rules for all. Then consumers will not be confused or misunderstand, advisers can get on with giving good advice like the banks and super trustees without the red tape like educational standards, FASEA Code of ethics and the likes. Viola problem solved. Or Ms Levy can listen to consumer groups, consider the scandalous history of super funds trustees and banks management and the current professional and educational standards, and FASEA (sic) Code of ethics and make recommendations that actually will benefit consumers.
Dear Angelique McInnes, are you able to voice your views on a much higher platform? As you have clearly understood the perspective of the adviser (unlike anyone else), our Industry is at a critical junction and based on the QAR proposals to date, you may in fact be the advice Industry’s last hope.
“Bankers, home loan lenders and mortgage brokers, Ken Hayne recommended that mortgage brokers who are acting as an intermediary have a best interest duty. So that’s now part of the law. He didn’t make that recommendation for the
loan officer in the bank.” Wow! just Wow! This Industry and everyone that feeds off it (excluding the actual Authorised Reps.) just never cease to amaze with their conflicted views, at every piece or legislation, review, enquiry, Royal Commission etc. I am absolutely convinced that after what advisers have been subjected to over the last 15 plus years, and continue with the QAR, we have no hope of any advocacy at the top and are sitting ducks. It is an Industry that has way too many stakeholders that are perpetually influencing the policy makers for outcomes that suit their own business objectives with complete disregard for the Professional Adviser.
It has become pretty obvious that Levy has been appointed to simply allow industry funds to have a free for all with providing advice now that the banks have stepped out of the industry.
Honestly given what we have all been through this is the last thing we want is a bunch of unqualified call centre providers pretending to be financial advisers.
I think I may be suffering from vertigo. Banks have divested their responsibilities after failing as licensees. We’re being screwed again and there is nothing we can do about it. What a nightmare it is.
Is she naive or ignorant, Super funds are already giving advice – the fact that it is so benign is helping Advisers. But seriously the Royal Commission and the ensuing mess came about mainly from the Banks jumping into the Financial Planning space, incentivizing their staff to ensure they never built a relationship but just became product floggers. So to let them come back with watered-down compliance is like a red rag to a Bull, they will jump at this free ride. Why don’t we invite Cassimadis and his Stormtroopers back into the industry as well???
I have now officially lost all faith in this sham QAR and hold a little smidge of faith in our industry surviving. How can a ‘quality’ advice review involve handing the reigns back to the institutions that caused the royal commission? All advisers may need to band together, start a super fund, and employ ourselves to provide ‘good advice’.
all advisers should have banded together a few years ago instead of letting egos get in the way. This whole situation started with Hume.
That’s not such a far fetched idea, in the sense of banding together, perhaps like the CA’s and CPA’s but have the advisers association run their own show, and registration, and take on everyone – Govt., Treasury, ASIC, AFCA, Levy, Jones and every other organisation that just wants to attack the adviser’s business model instead of working with us as true Professionals. Levy has clearly demonstrated that she is significantly conflicted and has no desire to protect what is scarcely left of our adviser Industry.
What an utter disgrace these comments from Michelle Levy are, it’s truly verbal dribble. There is no future for independent financial advisers under this regime, clearly we can all see where this is heading and who this benefits…
Exactly why Josh put her in charge so his big bank buddies get back in the game so they can rip off mum’s and dad’s again!
What’s the issue here? Super funds can hire a guy with a Year 10 education level selling lounges at Harvey Norman one week, and the next week they’re giving advice over the phone with zero documentation and zero personal risk, whilst Advisers giving the same advice drown in red tape. Isn’t that the plan the whole time? Isn’t the plan to kill off advisers? Seems like it’s on track.
It would be far more efficient to just set up a go fundme page and we Bribe Michelle to get the best outcome for Australians because the only word used to describe this backward bizzare legislation we’ve seen in the last decade is “corruption.” Corrupt politicians on the payroll of large super funds.
Wow – So the banks and super funds get away with their vertical integrated models but leave us to pay the price whilst they jump back in the pond with less legislated requirements to provide advice .. Yep I see how that is fair. If I were a cynic one may ask who is feathering Levy’s nest?
“We know superannuation funds are giving advice”. Well if you know that they are, and they are not abiding by the (current) law, prosecute them!!
So what was the point of the FASEA exam, qualifications and best interests duty. Only applies to small business advisers it appears. Remind Ms Levy to google AMLCTF major prosecutions. She may change her mind
To thin the numbers of voices that could have stood up and made noise.
so sorry I don’t understand why the large institution , responsibility lies with the licensee , after we had to pass FASEA
comply with Corporations Act , comply with FASEA code and this was to promote our profession into the RELM of all professionals AND WORK IN CLIENTS BEST INTEREST !
now the large institution since the hold their data can operate somewhat differently ??
confusing to say the least , not the same .
Clearly Ms Levy has not understood the onerous obligations of our industry or profession. An ‘assumed’ obligation to act in your interest is too broad, and will inevitably lead to further ‘assumed’ misdirection with extraordinary penalties and sanctions, along with further poor reporting of our industry.
This ongoing saga of determining what is deemed either ‘good, appropriate or best etc…’ advice is simply absurd. No other professional industry is defined by these determinations.
Ms Levy, prior to making such statements, maybe you should consider how this could apply to other professions such as……politics maybe ???
So the Banks and corporates create the circumstances for a Royal d promptly leave the field and the ongoing costs to those of us that do hold our clients front and center. The Government that created the rules that has decimated the industry are now putting in lower duty of care to those that created the problem. How short a memory to these politicians have??
With great respect, does this person have any idea what she is saying and what has occurred in the past 25 years?
So now bankers, insurance and investment managers can and should give advice to clients.
“A Duty to give Good Advice” which is different from “best Interest Duty”.?
Quote: “I am thinking”…… ..”then, I thought…..” Hopefully, thinking and deep thinking did not happen on the Loo, with respect!! “Give me a pencil someone”, I hear her cry!!
Seriously!?
An extension of this intuitive ,innate, congenital thinking: perhaps doctors, accountants ,lawyers should have a “Duty to give Good Advice”; good medical advice, good tax advice, good legal advice, etc.
So, pray tell, What is “Good Advice”?
More so, what is “A Duty”?
Ms Levy, truly has no idea. This is far above her ability and will result ,at worst, in a two tier system with some “grey line” of interpretation of “duty”, “good” and then “Best Interest Duty”. And at best the end of this “so-called” Profession and a relinquishment into the hands of “qualified” CA or CPA Accountants or CFA Qualified persons, with an approved Speciality in this field just like the doctors do for most specialities ,except of course for Cosmetic Surgery or “Plastic” surgery, where they are having their own conflicts and rising disputes. Funny that!!??
Some advice to Ms Levy, besides resigning, “Perfection” as Plastic Surgeons will tell you ,is not only unattainable but can seriously Risk the patient. You will not find “Perfection”, but you can determine strong lines of guidance.
What a diabolical mess!!
I think we need to put the Levy in the Chevy and wave it goodbye.
Let’s give the industry back to the ones who stuffed it… yeah, go away please Ms Levy.
so from December 2022, we can just give out personal advice over the phone ?
So according to Ms Levy you will still need to adhere to best interest duty if you’re an intermediary and independent of product providers, but only need to give good advice if you’re employed by a product provider? Hmm, did somebody say conflict of interest and unlevel playing field?
she hasn’t got a clue!
Why doesn’t the government just come out and say “Everybody out and we’ll switch off the lights on the industry.”
2030 = Levy’s induced Royal Commission.
Let product providers (Banks / Super Funds / Insurance Co’s) flog as much product as possible via Uneducated, Unqualified, Unlicensed and Unregulated call center jockeys. And all this product flogging is paid for by Hidden Commissions charged to all product / super members when most get No sales advice for Commissions paid.
No doubt a total disaster in the making. Great job Ms Levy.
It would be the same as allowing Drug companies to flog scripted medicines via non Dr call center jockeys.
And at the same time continue to tie up in Gordian Knots of BS Red Tape Regs the Real Advisers with complete different, complex, expensive, world record beating RUBBISH REGS & REGULATORS.
So if i have understood this correctly, Levy is going to recommend, Insurance (Companies) Product Manufacturers can provide insurance advice, and Super fund’s can provide investment and superannuation advice? But they wont have the best interest duty obligation, just a good advice duty obligation… so it will become good advice to recommend your own product and not give regard to the other products that might be in the client’s best interest. But as advisers you can only provide advice that is in the clients best interest, not good advice. So as an adviser you must provide strategic advice suitable to the clients circumstances and review the market for the product that best suits the clients need, however as an adviser working with an insurance company or super fund you don’t have to review the market. Is this for REAL!!!! LEVY please come clean, this is got to be a joke…… how have the institutions got away with this ooutcome.
who are also not funding the CSLR ? mmm does not seem fair michelle does it?
Your summary seems accurate – hasn’t this outcome been obvious for years?
Right so an adviser has to operate on a best interests duty now? I must have misread the original proposal with regards to QAR. Why do conflicted sales staff,robo advice, call centres get to operate on a lower duty? Shouldnt those educated and professional advisers get to operate with less onerous obligations.
Unsurprising comments! Appointed by Josh, “the mate of institutions”, and Michelle has worked for the institutions many times over many years. The question remains, how can you provide good (assuming this also includes appropriate advice) if you have not done sufficient investigation to establish a client/members overall personal/financial circumstances and goals and objectives??
The banks and super funds will love this opportunity and given their historically proven lack of good governance/oversight we may well finish up with yet another RC in to the industry!
I originally had high hopes for the QAR, but the more I hear from Levy the more I think it’s all about to go to crap again. Can we just find a model from overseas that works which we can adopt? I think we’ve run out of good ideas in Australia.
Whilst I think the concept of removing all the unnecessary paperwork (that clients don’t read and majority couldn’t decipher or understand on most occasions) this does smell of “looking after the big end of town” under the disguise of helping advisers deliver more affordable advice. Industry funds, banks and other major institutions must be licking their lips. How can an employee, at say a bank, provide appropriate advice if they don’t understand the client’s overall position? I am also curious as to who is an “intermediary” – is this the financial adviser?? Hmm, not sure but looks like advisers ultimately not really getting much support in the recommendations as first thought and perhaps back to the old days of letting industry funds and financial institutions run amuck.
Perception is reality. On the surface, people can’t distinguish a good advice provider from a poor advice provider until it’s too late. Allow banks and super funds give advice and you’ll be personally responsible for poor advice outcomes.
Best interest duty will become a millstone for intermediaries…
Those self employed AMP advisers must really be looking forward to hearing you speak on the Gold Coast this week Michelle.
“Then I thought about what can we have that is fit for purpose and so I am thinking about a duty to give good advice, because that is the word people keep using when they describe what they want and what they want to give,” Ms Levy said.
Really which people? The union super funds?
Isn’t this outcome what the Hayne Royal Commission sought to stop. Banks caused the problem, we are left with the outcomes & the perpetrators are allowed to come back in to a free for all. I am sick & tired of this industry I once loved. Oh well lets see how long it will take before the next Royal Commission.
Does anyone understand what she is saying? Does she want to go back in time 10 years in terms of regulation of advice, or is she suggesting a completely different approach to Intrafund advice etc.?
Genuine question!
walk into CBA branch and receive “good enough advice”
walk into a financial planner’s office and receive “advice in the best interests of the client”……..
the banks, superfunds and insurers are licking their lips ready to start the “good enough advice regime”