Appearing at a Senate committee on Wednesday, Joe Longo was asked by senator Slade Brockman about the sector, which Mr Brockman said has suffered from “regulatory overload” and that advisers “feel under an extraordinary amount of pressure”.
“From my perspective, it’s really important, in order for consumers and investors to participate confidently in our financial markets, to be able to have access to advice they can afford and to advice they can understand and have ready access to,” Mr Longo said.
“[There’s] no question that our system at the moment is complex and there’s a range of requirements that financial advisers have to comply with.
“As we know, there’s been a number of recent legislative changes coming out of the Royal Commission that have relevance to this problem as well.
“So for my part, I am concerned about this sector. I think it’s really important that consumers have access to affordable advice, to financial services advice.
“It will be one of my priorities to see what can be done to address that issue.”
It comes just a week after AIA Australia’s Australian Financial Advisers Wellbeing Report – which surveyed over 700 local advisers – found that 73 per cent are experiencing high levels of burnout from stress while 67 per cent experienced some level of depression.
A further 61 per cent of survey respondents reported trouble sleeping as a result of stress, while around a third of advisers who participated in the report said they were seeing a medical professional to manage their mental health issues.
Mr Longo concluded by saying that the sector is dealing with a “complex regime”.
“I think one of the challenges for ASIC and for policy makers is to figure out a way of making that regime more digestible with the practical effect of consumers having access to affordable advice,” he said.
I don’t like working in this industry anymore.
mate no one does. everyone is leaving. some of the most competent planners and business people who have been operating in the industry for 20 years are leaving. a mass exodus is underway. not just advisers, but also accountants with limited licenses, stockbrokers, etc
I’m more concerned about ASIC. They are inept
haha they confirmed that they received 500 submissions of which 244 were from financial planners, for CP332 promoting access to affordable advice, and then Danielle press comes out saying they think they need to tweak their RG.
When did the Productivity Commission last look at ASIC? Financial advice? FCS? FPA? Its MIA.
What we’re seeing is the results of a very proactive lobbying by the AIOFP, FINSIA and SMSFA and the Stockbrokers and Financial Advisers Association on a united front….. ASIC and Treausry are also starting to realize that the FPA represents large insto’s, via the Professional Partner Program and a $100,000 cheque. .
Its interesting that FASEA will pay back money to several institutions now that it is being dissolved. Surely that money should go into the ASIC Levy pot and there should be a reduction in 2021/2 or a cash return? So, historically the institutions have been the greater generators of issues but the smaller (and generally more compliant) participants pay for the privilege of being in the game; this doesn’t appear fair or reasonable!
The big banks have better lawyers than advisers. 🙁
Nothing wrong with “litigation” Joe but get a litigation funder to fund it and not the ones who are doing nothing wrong.
A litigation funder would also take a commercial approach and cease these pointless exercises of doing a post mortem and issuing punishment to a corpse that is already in the ground.
By the way, if no consumer is hurt or complaining, why does ASIC think it should be using other people’s money to pursue a crusade?
Other people’s money translates to the hard-earned income of advisers.
Because it doesn’t cost them a cent to try a case where the defendant is unable to speak up…
Now advice costs to clients are out of control it’s the perfect excuse for the powers that be to bring in expanded roles for intra fund advice and robo. Don’t think for one second our jobs are getting easier anytime soon unless you want to land a job with industry super. Makes you think that has been the plan all a long which aligns with my conclusion.
I’ve had a couple of enquiries recently looking for advice however, had to turn them away due to the cost being prohibitive for the advice they were seeking. Very sad scenario. This was an elderly person with little funds needing advice and a younger person trying to start out. I didn’t become a financial adviser to only provide advice to high net wealth clients.
If he is fair dinkum start by eliminating the ASIC levy. This is a govt cost that should not be paid by advisers.
Being concerned is a good start. But is he concerned enough to do something about it? Time will tell, but I am not holding my breathe.
his predecessor the illustrious Mr medcraft (hands up who remembers him ushering in Alex Malley of CPA fame, naked ceo anyone, haha)
said the same thing as him, did nothing. nothings gonna happen. so leave now and keep your mental peace.
Didn’t ASIC once say “we want heads on sticks”…. so sticking with that language….”We’ve stomped on his/her head and kicked him in the guts….he’s stil breathing so that’s enough….you don’t want to totally kill advisers because you might do yourself out of a job….you have to let them crawl up before you kick them again.”
ASIC is crucial for advisers’ future. This is the first time that a commissioner or above has spoken in this tone. A good start.
It also works the other way. Having advisers that they know cannot always follow the regulations is crucial for ASIC becoming bigger. More job security. They won’t be recommending government relax anything for fear of job losses within their own ranks.
I’m happy to give you (Joe) the benefit of the doubt.
My questions are:
– If [b]after one year[/b], the regulatory and cost burdens for Financial Advisers have not lightened, [b]what are the consequence[/b] to you and to ASIC [b]that you think would be fair[/b]?
– If [b]after two years[/b], the regulatory and cost burdens for Financial Advisers have not lightened, [b]what are the consequence[/b] to you and to ASIC [b]that you think would be fair[/b]?
– If [b]after three years[/b], the regulatory and cost burdens for Financial Advisers have not lightened, [b]what are the consequence[/b] to you and to ASIC [b]that you think would be fair[/b]?
I choose A.
I don’t think it was meant to be a multiple choice option (like the FARCE exam where you have to pick the best option and no one knows why except the academics in their ivory tower).
If there is inaction/ no change/ no positive result as it pertains to the regulatory and cost burdens for Financial Advisers after one year, then again after two years, and yet again after three years, the OP was asking what a fair consequence should be so that if by these timeframes there is no improvement, the consequences are have already been agreed upfront.
Seems fairer than the way ASIC has been treating Financial Advisers for procedural infractions when there has been ‘no harm done’.
To be fair, he is probably more concerned on moving arrangements and how it can be done within ASIC budget. Might be some other Tax issues etc.
I am sure ASIC in house legal teams will be ready and willing to help and assist in whatever legal issues their new leader throws their way – or was that just the other bloke?
exactly they could care less about advisers. he is just making sure he doesn’t get in trouble like shipped on (get it Shipton) ha ha so funny
More code for giving the Union Funds expanded intra-fund advice scope. Don’t get sucked in by this.
my thoughts exactly. “proper” advisers will be burred in red tape….the guys/gals in a Union Super fund call centre life will get even more simpler. Look at the FPA and their major partner AwareSuper and the writing is on the wall.
Totes agree, it will be another ASIC, LNP Frydenberg stitch up of Real Advisers.
Zero confidence in these bureaucratic clowns in their Canberra Bubble.
Vote out the LNP & Frydenberg and they may start to listen.
Will they listen? Will the other lot listen? Don’t hold yourbreath.
Nice words, Joe. Ill believe it when I see it though.
You go grab a handful of actual advisers and ask them “What needs to change?” then ill take you seriously.
If you just go and have a bunch of lawyers who have never provided advice ‘review’ the industry, its just more lip service resulting in a higher levy again.
There are so many pieces of red tape that exist, that could easily be removed quickly, that provide consumers literally zero benefit.
Read this article with cautious optimism. Agree that Joe should go direct to “the coalface” and speak to advisers rather than get bogged down with ill informed legalistic bull***t.
Maybe, just may be, Joe could be the “light at the end of the tunnel” rather than the “wrecking ball” we have been putting up with for years!!
they will grab a handful of advisers but they will be the poisonous ones who see nothing good in the industry
Good to see they’re aware finally. It’s been evident for a few years now.
The cost benefit analysis of regulatory change has been sadly non-existent. Knee-jerk reactions and policy adjustments have wrecked the industry. As a practitioner, seeing so many good people give up and exit has been a blow to confidence in staying.
The excess demand we are seeing now has created supply constraints. We are putting up fees a lot and simply turning others away.
Are these Clowns finally getting it? Or is this just more BS spin
Just more BS
more BS, they don’t get it. cushy job, turn up get paid why bother. it’s everyone else’s problem.