X
  • About
  • Advertise
  • Contact
Get the latest news! Subscribe to the ifa bulletin
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Podcast
  • Risk
  • Events
  • Video
  • Promoted Content
  • Webcasts
No Results
View All Results
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Podcast
  • Risk
  • Events
  • Video
  • Promoted Content
  • Webcasts
No Results
View All Results
No Results
View All Results
Home Opinion

The true cost of reform

Financial services industry reform, designed to improve consumer outcomes, may in fact have the opposite effect.

by Michael Harrison Synchron
November 6, 2017
in Opinion
Reading Time: 5 mins read
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

At what point does the cost of reform take away the benefits of advice?

This question needs to be asked because at this point in the advice industry’s evolution, the true cost feels excessive.

X

Australia is underinsured. The pension bill is horrific and social security costs, which currently amount to 35 per cent of the government’s total expenses, are escalating every year.

In fact, according to a recent ASFA report, under-insurance in relation to death, TPD and income protection costs the government more than $1 billion annually in additional social security payments.

The government’s own estimate is that $191.8 billion will be spent in 2019-20 on social security, not including other welfare payments, such as health and education and income support for students.

How long can we as a nation go on like this?

We are at serious risk of becoming a welfare state and while welfare is important, we should be being encouraged to take care of ourselves and our families via superannuation and life insurance. Life insurance is a grudge purchase – although everyone needs it, no-one wants to buy it. But instead of encouraging people to get it, more and more obstacles are being put in the way.

These obstacles come in the guise of a number of additional costs imposed on the advice community as a result of financial advice reform.

These costs, accompanied as they will be by a decline in adviser revenue, are likely to make advice so expensive to deliver, that it will put many small business advisers out of business and/or so expensive to access, consumers won’t be able to get it.

We have itemised the costs. They speak for themselves.

New costs

New costs that will impact on the advice community include:

1. Tax Practitioners Board (TPB) fees – $400-800 per adviser every three years.

Financial advisers who earn income from providing a tax (financial advice) service must now be registered with the TPB. These fees range from $400-800 per adviser every three years.

2. ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery fee – estimated $1,500 per licensee plus an as-yet-to-be-clarified fee per adviser, which could also be as much as $1,500.

This fee, due to be introduced as early as the beginning of next year, is to fund ASIC’s supervision of the advice industry. But the lack of clarity around how much the per adviser fee will be is almost as troubling as the introduction of the fee itself – it makes it very difficult for advice businesses to make meaningful financial projections.

3. The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) – estimated $137 million plus increases in adviser professional indemnity (PI) insurance premiums.

Announced in the federal budget this year, the new AFCA will replace three existing consumer complaints schemes – the Financial Ombudsman Service, the Credit and Investments Ombudsman and the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal. The estimated cost to fund the amalgamation and form AFCA is $137 million in the first year alone. We believe this cost will ultimately be borne by licensees, who will pass it onto advisers, who will pass it onto clients – but again, these are only estimates, there is no clarity around actual costs.

The second effect of AFCA is that the limit for individual consumer claims will increase to $1 million per claim. This is highly likely to increase the cost of PI cover for advisers. But by how much? Again, we don’t yet know.

4. Education costs – estimated $2,500-10,000 per year, plus.

From 1 January 2019, advisers entering the industry must have a relevant degree and must be supervised. All advisers, new and existing, must pass an industry exam.

Business degrees majoring in financial advice can cost in the vicinity of $10,000 a year from a major university. That creates a barrier to entry. But at least it is a cost that can be reasonably quantified. It’s not as easy to quantify the cost of supervising new advisers, which again is an expense borne by the financial advice business and ultimately passed on to clients.

However, it’s the cost to advisers already operating in the industry that causes us more concern.

While we know that existing advisers will have two years to transition and pass the exam and five years to meet new education requirements, including what has been described as ‘degree equivalency’, we don’t know what ‘degree equivalency’ means and therefore we don’t know what it will cost.

5. Compulsory professional association membership – $800 per year

To be exempt from the opt-in requirement introduced as part of the Future of Financial Advice (FoFA) reforms, financial advisers must be bound by a Code of Conduct. The simplest way for financial advisers to do this is to become a member of a professional association, in effect making professional association membership compulsory. There is obviously a cost attached to this.

Financial services industry reform, designed to improve consumer outcomes, may in fact have the opposite effect – because it may ultimately force small business advisers out of business and price life insurance advice out of the reach of the very people who need it most.

We are working with our advice network to ensure they have the support they need to continue providing advice to everyday Australians. We will continue to have a voice with government and to work with the industry to ensure advisers are represented and heard.

Michael Harrison is the chairman of non-bank licensee Synchron.

Related Posts

Why we must be optimistic about the barriers to advice

by Neil Rogan
November 10, 2025
0

Financial advice in Australia is often perceived as something people hesitate to engage with, however there is cause for greater...

The rise of model portfolios: Global trends and developments

by Kathleen Gallagher and Sinead Schaffer
November 3, 2025
0

Model portfolios have shifted from niche to mainstream, both in the US and Australia, marking a major change in the...

Fund manager ratings: Why due diligence is key, even on ratings houses

by Chris Gosselin
October 27, 2025
3

Fund research and fund ratings are intended to be detailed qualitative assessments used by the key parties in the fund...

Comments 30

  1. Anonymous says:
    8 years ago

    [b]QUESTION [/b]FOR THE WRITER; [b]MICHAEL HARRISON[/b] . . .
    [i]Michael[/i], with the background of your career in the life industry and specifically your time with Zurich, can you please answer a question that has been unanswered for SOOOO long: WHY IS THERE NO CONSIDERATION OR CONVERSATION BEING GIVEN TO A SEPARATE RISK LICENCE FOR PURE RISK ADVISERS? Incredibly, absolutely nobody in the public eye wants to address this issue!
    .
    Many older riskies, like myself, would probably be fine with any exam that focused on risk without the unnecessary extraneous subject matter mentioned in the other comments that full financial planners are tested on. Seriously, how hard would it be for life companies/Kaplan/legislators to formulate a good life focuses exam for advisers who have looked after cleint’s risk needs (only) for decades AND, surprisingly, never had a complaint against them!
    .
    Would be great to have Michael answer this as I have only ever seen life company types and legislators shy away from this particular question – seems someone has an agenda NOT to have a separate risk licence out in the wild and I’d love to get to the bottom of why. It would MORE THAN LIKELY make the difference between ‘older’ riskies having to retire in 2021 or stay in the industry so they and their clients could capitalise on their enthusiasm and experience while able to do so.
    .
    Of course, I’d be more than happy for fellow advisers to have a crack at answering this too! Just really love to see if Michael is still listening here and able to contribute . . .

    Reply
    • Anonymous says:
      8 years ago

      Yesterday I attended a technical session conducted by BT Life, focused on the impact of recent super changes on insurance products and strategies. 2 hours of fairly detailed super and tax and platform stuff that insurance advisers really need to understand to get their clients the best insurance solution. I suspect that may hold the answer to your question. Insurance has now become so intertwined with super and tax and investment issues that it is no longer possible to treat it in isolation.

      Reply
      • Agree says:
        8 years ago

        Spot on anonymous. Insurance advisers provide advice to clients on superannuation, tax, estate planning… It’s almost impossible now.

        Reply
      • McGlashen says:
        8 years ago

        You sure you didn’t copy that speech from the CEO of Kodak? How refreshing to hear the old “why do we need to change” talk… Regardless of my mindless ramblings you already have a separate Risk License…. Your AFSL can restrict any representative to a certain category of financial product, whether that be Derivatives, Life Insurance, retirement savings accounts, and or all of the above….. Ring up your AFSL and say please remove all conditions on my authorizations other than Risk… Maybe you could spend/invest $2,600 and even do the new Diploma of Insurance, now offered by Kaplan to create evidence of your skills.

        Risk advisers saw FoFA, did nothing…you’ve seen LIF ….tick tick tick timing is coming & labor government is ahead of the polls… Good luck with the we don’t need to do nothing argument a third time. I’m pretty sure Comrade Bill Shorten is reading about NSG Super and their risk specialist advisers rolling over industry super funds to get better life insurance policies and falling foul of the best interest obligations.

        Reply
  2. Anonymous says:
    8 years ago

    To get the benefits of the Opt-In exemption involves much more than signing up to a professional association with a Code of Conduct. In the case of FPA, you also have to comply with their internally developed Opt-In compliance process, which is actually far more complex than the standard ASIC process. It gives you 3 years instead of 2 to get a renewal notice signed, but it’s debatable whether that extra year is worth all the extra overhead. If minimising the impact of Opt-In is your only motivation for joining the FPA you’ll save money and time by not joining.

    Reply
  3. Anonymous says:
    8 years ago

    The biggest cost that hasn’t been mentioned is the LIF when it comes to underinsurance. Advisers would have to be mad to keep writing new risk business in the future with all of the other costs and burdens mentioned. Under the LIF risk business will be written at a loss to the adviser so why would they do it?
    Like most other risk advisers its time to sit on trails for a few years, look after existing customers and retire early. And strongly discourage anybody you care about from entering this industry.

    Reply
    • Rob Coyte says:
      8 years ago

      Couldn’t agree more.

      There will be a whole swathe of unintended consequences as a result of LIF which I would suggest will see a backflip or massive reversal at a point in time that is too late.

      Reply
  4. Andrew says:
    8 years ago

    Being FPA doesn’t get you out of the opt-in rules. It simply means you can opt-in your clients every 3 years if that is what you agree with them

    Reply
    • Anonymous says:
      8 years ago

      Yes…and (1) upon your membership ceasing or forgetting to be renewed you are automatically in breach of the law and face a $50,000 fine for each instance. (2) Most likely any dealer group you switch to also won’t allow you for those very same reasons. (3) Importantly any person buying your business would also have to be in the same program otherwise they’d be in breach of the rules. Don’t be handcuffed into joining this. Not much difference between 2 and 3 years in my opinion so why take the risk of joining the FPA program..

      Reply
  5. yachticus says:
    8 years ago

    its pretty simple really – this was all part of the plan – and you can see the ISN guys laughing – if they make our job impossible – or distracted with rubbish – it means their clients will be left alone. It never was about the public interest – it was always about fabian socialism – big brother knows best – and for the ISN world and its champions(the left side of politics it was an ideological fight – we as a group have given them so many free kicks – and engaged muppets to act on our behalf – the insto’s couldnt give a rats – coz they have a play on both sides of the fence. Its laughable its so obvious

    Reply
    • Anonymous says:
      8 years ago

      Totally and completely agree with you yachticus. Look at the downfall of any society and it is internal rot like this that spreads the cancer. Ancient Rome, the senate (FPA/AFA/LNP) were too busy with their own power struggles and internal politicking to really give any combined attention to the barbarians (ISA/Labor) at their gate. While our ‘champions’ (FPA/AFA) tip toe around scared to offend anyone on the other side, the opposition are slinging falsehoods and shiz in our faces and to the senate – who is buying it. Ultimately our livlihood, our businesses, our staff and the Australian public pay for it, while the unions, ISA and Labor financially benefit.

      Reply
  6. Money Trail says:
    8 years ago

    My old boss used to say if you want to know what is going on follow the money. Who benefits from the cost of additional education? Who benefits from the cost of association membership? Who benefits from the supervisory cost recovery fee?

    I’m no accountant, however each expense item mentioned above represents a revenue item for the recipient.

    Reply
  7. Anonymous says:
    8 years ago

    Michael thank-you for your common sense approach to the truth.

    Reply
  8. Anonymous says:
    8 years ago

    Thank you for being an enduring voice in these types of discussion, Michael, and championing the adviser cause. Many AFSL holders could learn much from your example. Thank you.

    Reply
  9. Anonymous says:
    8 years ago

    Michael states:
    “While we know that existing advisers will have two years to transition and pass the exam and five years to meet new education requirements, including what has been described as ‘degree equivalency’, we don’t know what ‘degree equivalency’ means and therefore we don’t know what it will cost.”
    .
    I’d like to ask the specific ‘year’ dates for these things of anyone can help please. “two years to transition” – does this mean 2 years AFTER 2019 when the newbies do their exam? Do we existing advisers have until 2021 to pass this exam? What about the “5 years to meet new education requirement – what year does this mean – 2024? Please, some clarification with year numbers not just descriptions. Honestly, I’m not being rambunctious or cute here, I’m speaking from the heart and saying what I really mean, nothing more or less.
    .
    I’m concerned for myself here because as an adviser of 33 years I’m great with protecting my clients with all types of personal insurance but not so good at exams with the type of sophisticated content as they will be throwing at us. I’m devoted to my clients and would have left the industry a decade ago if not for the client contact and sense of achievement through being of great benefit to them as I have. Many claims I’ve assisted, many policies I’ve correctly configured, many shoulder I have loaned to a distressed client and much camaraderie I’ve shared with clients. I’ve been a pure risk adviser for my entire career, being happy to outsource the investment and full estate planning to others who have their head completely around that stuff. I know my limitations and have called on specialist partners to assist when required.
    .
    Now I’m being told I am no longer going to be[i] “qualified” [/i]to be a client adviser come 2019/20/21 or whenever. The idiot academic bureaucrats are going to attempt to prove I am an unqualified risk adviser by forcing me to sit an exam. The exam will question my knowledge on international currency exchange, derivatives, CFD’s, sharemarket, complex formulas involved in various forms of finance and other sophisticated financial planning academia. If I do not pass my clients will have to find a new adviser! All this so I can continue to review my clients and their income protection, death cover and trauma insurance. Make sense to you?
    .
    I have no stronger than a 50/50 feeling I can pass such an exam. Even so, the time required to study for it – time away from serving clients and my family – is hardly efficient, needed or appealing to me. God knows how much of a gouge the money side of it will be – probably a few grand. For what? A piece of paper to document the months I took away from serving my clients to prove I did what the politicians needed me to do to help justify [b]their [/b]jobs? No, I won’t be doing any such exams but I would be grateful if someone (or Michael) could give me the year I will be retiring and selling my client base – the last year I can stay before the exam must be done. I am reasonably sure it is 2021 but would appreciate confirmation. Thanks in advance guys.

    Reply
    • McGlashen says:
      8 years ago

      To answer you questions. You’ll need a Degree by the 1 January 2024. For new entrants, the meaning of a “Degree” has been set and from 1 Jan 2019 it is a Bachelor of Commerce (Financial Planning) or Grad Dip of FP or like. We are awaiting what “Degree” means for existing advisers. In my opinion, in order to be policed it will require similar meaning to what new advisers require. This rules out a lot of people who might buy your business. The exam comes in for anyone on ASIC register from the 1 January 2019 and you’ll need to pass the exam by January 1, 2021. i.e 2 years to pass, practice. I believe you’ll have two attempts and because of the issues you raised parties in FASEA have mentioned it will be more compliance related in nature. All the above is written in stone and is done and dusted.

      Therefore you last day is 31st of December 2020. If you pass it could be 31st of Dec 2023.

      Reply
      • Squeaky_1 says:
        8 years ago

        Thank you very much McGlashen for your response.

        Reply
      • Anonymous says:
        8 years ago

        for most advisers, it will be c’est la vie. the FASEA exam has to be brutal. so much so that if you pass that exam, you would easily pass – without very little studying- the exam to be an actuary, an astronaut or a medical doctor

        a neurosurgeon needs at least 15 years training to practice, a financial adviser should be no less. FFS we are handling people’s life savings.

        BRUTAL FASEA and rid of CRUD NOW!!

        start studying folks, derivatives, options, foreign currency translation, IFRS accounting standards, CAPM, DCF, the whole lot you are going to need to know all of it[b] CHUMS[/b]

        if you can’t pass it, count your good fortune, you have been able to do what you have with very little knowledge and good luck, retire to your seaside home worth in the millions and open up a bottle of nz sauvignon blanc and count your lucky stars

        farewell

        Reply
        • SteveDarke says:
          8 years ago

          You’ve made this point on a number of articles now, you can probably give it a rest.

          I have to say, in over a decade in managing a boutique firm which focuses on investment management, not once have I needed to calculate the value of an option, interest rate swap or calculate currency conversions. I’ve never had to work out the duration of a bond or perform a complex portfolio attribution analysis. And that’s not because I can’t, because I do hold the CFA qualification, but what you are proposing is complete overkill for financial advisers.

          And a neurosurgeon is a bad analogy – no financial adviser makes anywhere near what a neurosurgeon makes and rightly so.

          Reply
          • Anonymous says:
            8 years ago

            maybe you propose a better analogy for a financial adviser. how about a janitor. they are equally skilled aren’t they terd?

        • Crudick Headimus says:
          8 years ago

          You are a moron and exactly the type of self serving clown who has no right to sit amongst some of these venerable older advisers who have worked with their heart and soul for so long. Your appalling disrespect and utter lack of manners hardly qualifies you as a professional, let alone even a worthy member of the human race. I question the number of people who would even notice or care if you were to exit either.

          Reply
          • Pani Puri says:
            8 years ago

            yes, this guy is a MORON unlike you crud. so contemplate on the following pal:

            in the past 12 months there were (double check with FOS punks) monkeys:

            1. [b]4[/b][u][/u] disputes for Accountants – estimate at 180,000 in total, assume 25,000 in public practice work out the % crud
            2. 7 reported disputes for Mortgage Brokers – estimated 22,000 in practice
            3. [b]572 [/b][i][/i][u][/u]for FINANCIAL PLANNERS from 25,000 in practice

            WORK OUT THE VARIANCE PUNKS BETWEEN THESE AND THEN BLAME OTHERS PIGS and get back to me and let me know if RG 146 is sufficient PIGS

            and if all is working fine and why government (mostly retards) think that there should be an exam and a higher education requirement

            check your net worth, it should be close to a bankrupt

        • McGlashen says:
          8 years ago

          I think you’re getting financial planners confused with Fund Managers or Stockbrokers. I feel really sad for you actually that you’ve been hurt so bad in some way. Most likely by some unlicensed accountant selling you an ag scheme or something bad has happened. I hope you are ok and getting back on your feet. I’m sure that there is an adviser reading that could help if you wanted to leave your details with IFA. I’ve got to go and go Back to helping the 70 year old half blind widow with the age pension application for free. By the way most financial planners would be lucky to make half as much as a plumber these days and have twice as much risk.

          Reply
      • Anonymous says:
        8 years ago

        The current definition also rules out a lot of people with degree’s.

        Reply
    • Cotton Eye Joe says:
      8 years ago

      Well that’s a long post.
      1. Re Exam. Yes, existing Advisers have UNTIL 1 January 2021 to pass the national exam (it opens for new Advisers on 1 January 2019 which they have to pass before they can be authorised). This exam is likely to contain the main heads of advice being Insurance, Investments and Super. If you do not pass first go it is very likely you can resit based on the most recent, reliable commentary.
      2. Re Qualifications. You have until 1 January 2024 to have a degree level, or higher, qualification
      So, if you don’t pass the exam by 31/12/2020 then that’s it. If you don’t then upgrade your quals (if you have to) by 31/12/2023 then that’s it also.

      Reply
      • Anonymous says:
        8 years ago

        Thanks Cotton Eye Joe, very much appreciated.

        Reply
  10. Bobby says:
    8 years ago

    Thanks for your voice, it’s too late for me I have started the process of winding down, the cost versus return is not there, I might as well become a courier and earn more money

    Reply
    • Pea Nus says:
      8 years ago

      courier, Uber driver, mortgage broker, and best of all self-immolation, it’s all better than being a “financial adviser”

      Reply
  11. The Patriot says:
    8 years ago

    there is one more aspect which may concern future governments… fewer advisers in the Risk space as specialists. Why? Fee for service is the preferred, though flawed, option for industry talking heads. for clients, commission/brokerage works really well. Premiums are not reflecting the pure fee for service regime yet and thereby hangs a tale. Fewer individuals and businesses being covered for proper sums insured and the exodus of experienced advisers who truly understand risk… costs borne by?… yes, society as a whole and government as the particular distributor. Also, what is a practice going to be worth in the future? more or less? if less, then that is a further real cost to the adviser. To combat that, nett profits have to rise and only clients can pay for that. It is sad that “ideals” of some at the top of our industry have scuppered the very thing that pays their wages. Realism in life is becoming scarce as fake everything takes over… and its in our systems now. Change for the benefit of consumers is good… change for the benefit of society is good. Change for the sake of a misplaced set of ideals is bad.

    Reply
  12. Runaway Roger says:
    8 years ago

    Great article Michael. All the costs you mention, plus licensee costs, costs to run a business and employ someone on the type of pay and conditions a lot of small business owners could only dream about make you wonder where the industry will be in 5 years’ time. No doubt the politicians and bureaucrats are patting themselves on the back having done such a terrific job cleaning up (wiping out) a once viable small business vocation.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

VIEW ALL
Promoted Content

Private Credit in Transition: Governance, Growth, and the Road Ahead

Private credit is reshaping commercial real estate finance. Success now depends on collaboration, discipline, and strong governance across the market.

by Zagga
October 29, 2025
Promoted Content

Boring can be brilliant: why steady investing builds lasting wealth

Excitement sells stories, not stability. For long-term wealth, consistency and compounding matter most — proving that sometimes boring is the...

by Zagga
September 30, 2025
Promoted Content

Helping clients build wealth? Boring often works best.

Excitement drives headlines, but steady returns build wealth. Real estate private credit delivers predictable performance, even through volatility.

by Zagga
September 26, 2025
Promoted Content

Navigating Cardano Staking Rewards and Investment Risks for Australian Investors

Australian investors increasingly view Cardano (ADA) as a compelling cryptocurrency investment opportunity, particularly through staking mechanisms that generate passive income....

by Underfive
September 4, 2025

Join our newsletter

View our privacy policy, collection notice and terms and conditions to understand how we use your personal information.

Poll

This poll has closed

Do you have clients that would be impacted by the proposed Division 296 $3 million super tax?
Vote
www.ifa.com.au is a digital platform that offers daily online news, analysis, reports, and business strategy content that is specifically designed to address the issues and industry developments that are most relevant to the evolving financial planning industry in Australia. The platform is dedicated to serving advisers and is created with their needs and interests as the primary focus.

Subscribe to our newsletter

View our privacy policy, collection notice and terms and conditions to understand how we use your personal information.

About IFA

  • About
  • Advertise
  • Contact
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Collection Notice
  • Privacy Policy

Popular Topics

  • News
  • Risk
  • Opinion
  • Podcast
  • Promoted Content
  • Video
  • Profiles
  • Events

© 2025 All Rights Reserved. All content published on this site is the property of Prime Creative Media. Unauthorised reproduction is prohibited

No Results
View All Results
NEWSLETTER
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Podcast
  • Risk
  • Events
  • Video
  • Promoted Content
  • Webcasts
  • About
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us

© 2025 All Rights Reserved. All content published on this site is the property of Prime Creative Media. Unauthorised reproduction is prohibited