The new example SOA, included in Regulatory Guide 90, was developed using behavioural research into how clients read and understand information in SOA documents, and is intended to assist advisers write SOAs that are “compliant, concise, easy to understand, and written in plain English”.
“SOAs are a fundamental and important tool for an adviser to communicate their advice to the client,” said ASIC deputy chair Peter Kell.
“We appreciate the feedback we received on the draft example SOA and have taken it on board in finalising the guidance.”
Mr Kell said the new example SOA was designed to minimise the regulatory burden faced by advisers while still catering to the needs and interests of clients.
The release of the new example SOA is part of updates to RG90 ahead of the implementation of the incoming life insurance advice reform package, the regulator said.
“As part of these reforms, ASIC was asked to consider how to improve consumer understanding, and adviser use, of SOAs. Consideration of prominent, upfront disclosure of commissions in SOAs was a component of the review brief,” ASIC said.
sorry but where has any of the feedback given by the industry been incorporated into this document? again its shows ASIC is full of public servants policy wonks and failed lawyers that haven’t worked in the real world and have never sat down in front of a client and completed any advice meeting or presentation. The way this is written is full of waffle and I can see clients reading this any more than any other SOA. bullet points are far better at getting the basic information across to the client backed up by an explanation form the adviser, client swill read the bullet points and absorb what was said from the adviser as we explain the relevance to their actual situation. The waffle contained in this document is again just ASIC justifying its existence. Did they check this with a actual person ? did they real world test this with actual clients ? maybe before determining a document a whole industry is supposed to follow they actually test it on real work clients not “Case Studies”. the admission by Asic in RG90 that the client will use this as a reference document and wont read it fully ( read here that if something goes wrong ASIC will use it against the adviser) is an admission that this sort of long winded document is just another arse covering exercise that bears no resemblance to what the client actually needs or wants. Even the overly over the top size font on the headings of the documents and the use of two whole pages to show the commission rather than combing it into one table is a thinly veiled admission form ASIC that they thing the public are idiots or that all advisers will in some way try to hide something unless its spelled out as if the client is a two year old. What an utterly riduclous wast of time form ASIC.
“You may also be asked to complete a medical examination. This is called underwriting…blah blah blah”. Oh and guess what guys…we should be able to do this document on a word processing program according to the guide. WOW! “The example SOA has been formatted in a common word-processing package that should be available to all advisers”.
I give up. I’m too stupid for this job. I’ve been handwriting SOAs when I could have been using a computer.
ASIC, If you stopped after page 5 if you have been great….but no, you had to keep going and going, regurgitating everything that would have been written in the fact find and working papers. You’ve written a 2000 word essay again. Where’s the efficiencies? Do you really expect a family to read through all that? How long would it take to prepare? By the time the SOA is written the client might have died uninsured. Too much duplication in this job. Why do a fact find at all? Let’s just stick it all in the SOA then.
What a sad piece of work. 23 pages for relatively simple insurance advice is truly awful. Apparently this is ok because clients don’t read the SOA all the way through, instead they use it as a ‘reference document’. What a bizarre explanation. Reading RG 90 is like watching an episode of ABC’s Utopia. If the SOA was condensed into a short, non-repetitive, 3-4 pages guess what? Our clients might actually read the thing! Honestly, there needs to be a wholesale clean out at ASIC. They have no idea what they are doing. Did anyone else notice they recommended an ‘Industry Superannuation’ product. Even the ABC aren’t that stupid enough to use brand names.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!! BEN!!!! You’ve nailed it!! ABC’s Utopia, hahahahahahaaaaa!! Too funny! That’s exactly what it is. I could not have said it better myself nor found a better analogy. Nearly spat my coffee all over my monitor! Tooooo funny! I love Utopia and haven’t missed an episode. – thanks Ben, just the good belly laugh I needed on a Friday after a heavy regulation laden week. Cheers mate!
Ben, I agree about the 3 – 4 page non repetitive doc. I do 99% insurance only advice and have used Microsoft Word to create my SoA’s for many years. Consequently my risk SoA is about 3-4 pages with the very odd one blowing out to 5 – 6 pages. I’ve passed every single dealer audit to which I’ve been subjected since 2004 and come out ‘squeaky’ – believe me, the two dealers that did those audits are two of the industries biggest proponents on strict compliance – NO slack cut. If I was doing anything outside of my client’s best interest I WOULD DEFINITELY KNOW ABOUT IT by now, trust me on that!
.
So, no need for multi-thousand dollar software packages guys – ‘Word’ will do it ‘IF’ you know what you are doing and what you are talking about. Sounds to me like everybody here, at least, does know their stuff . . . opportunity right there guys (and gals) to extricate yourselves from the gouging dealer fees for these over-rated software packages we are all convinced we can’t do without! Well, at least for the risk-only advisers amongst us. Give it some thought people. I did, and I’m now with a dealer that respects all of the above and charges me accordingly – HALF of any dealer fee I have ever previously paid! It is out there people – look for it. Small dealers, less than 20 advisers. Riskies who don’t need their hands held can use this type of COMPLIANT and HONEST AFSL holder so please, give it some thought. We have mostly been taken advantage of and hoodwinked in this regard. The fees most advisers pay are OBSCENE! Rant part over .
.
Absolutely no need or reason to create this idiocy ASIC is suggesting, no need at all. I’ve no real idea what possesses ASIC in this regard, other than doing or saying ‘something’ to justify their existence and putting their hand out each Friday for taxpayer funded paychecks. Sloughing at the taxpayer funded trough, nonetheless. These government ‘free-fed’ trolls truly have a lot to answer for in the way they are confusing clients with repetitive lengthy docs and making advisers lives hell. [b]No damn ASIC creature asked ME for feedback on their new SoA ‘creation’ [/b][i][/i]. . . tell me guys, did they ask anyone else here? Where did this “feedback” of which they speak come from?
.
This latest ASIC SoA is nothing but an abject joke – 20+ pages for a risk advice(!), they simply have to be kidding . . . or just be ASIC – both the same. I sit and read through the SoA I create with my clients – I’d be uniformly embarrassed to do the same with a Frankenstein version from ASIC – they’d simply fall to sleep! Wake UP ASIC – join the real world or GET OUT!!! You’re a nuisance to advisers wanting nothing but the best for their clients – [b]GET OUT OF THE WAY[/b] [i]UNTIL YOU GET YOUR ACT SORTED!![/i] Ask some REAL experienced advisers, like those on this page, they’ll help you understand the industry and what’s required. Please don’t come back to us until you’ve done that and can prove you’ve done that.