But as Ms Levy heads back to her day job, there are a few things she wants advisers to know.
Speaking at the FPA Professionals Congress, Ms Levy said that looking back at what now feels like a lifetime ago — the day she was first appointed the Quality of Advice Review (QAR) reviewer — she can now earnestly say that she misjudged the size of the challenge that lay before her.
“It is a big challenge. I probably didn’t realise how big of a challenge it was,” Ms Levy said.
“When I got the call, I was so excited. I did not think I would get it, because I knew they were speaking to a few people. My initial reaction was, ‘isn’t it an honour to have even been thought of’, and then as I spoke to the then minister Jane Hume, I became more and more excited because I thought this is actually an area I know intimately.
“I know a lot of people ask why it wasn’t a financial planner, why it was a lawyer — I suppose it is a review of the regulatory framework and how it affects the industry, so I think a lawyer was going to be the person that should do that role.”
As for “Why her?” Ms Levy said that while that may have been “a good question”, she feels she was well qualified for the job.
While a multitude of things has surprised her over the past eight months, the one thing that has stood out, she said, is “how personal it is”.
“And I think personal for all of you and personal now for me. And that much has surprised me, just how passionate all of you are and how passionate I am about it and wanting to solve it,” Ms Levy said.
In fact, she said, the task at hand had infiltrated not only her every waking hour but her dreams, too.
“All I can think about is this. I go to bed and I am dreaming about it all night, I’m sort of thinking about it constantly,” Ms Levy said.
And while those movie-like light bulb moments haven’t adorned her experience, what she has come to realise, over time, is that the “law is the wrong way around”.
“A lot of people have complained, almost everybody, about the complexity of the law, its inflexibility, and a lot of people have come with ideas about how we could make it easier to understand, easier to apply,” Ms Levy said.
“The law focuses on what people who give advice have to do, it focuses on the documents they have to provide, the conduct and the processes… Really, we should be focusing and the law should be focusing on what the consumer wants. In your case, what do your clients want? That’s how the law should be, it should reflect what this is actually about, which is helping consumers get good advice.”
Ms Levy is due to present to the government her final report by 16 December and she assured that huge surprises are unlikely as she heads into the final weeks of the review.
“I don’t know when the paper will be released. I hope quickly, but there are not going to be many surprises in there. I’ve been quite open about what I’m recommending,” Ms Levy said.
“I think in the main there is support, I know I have heard that there are some concerns, but I would ask everyone to sort of step back and look at the whole and say, ‘Is it actually good as a whole?’ And if it is, then encourage everyone you know to be saying that.”
Laws can only provide a framework within which clients and their advisers can work towards what clients want. They cannot determine the outcomes.
Concepts of respect, financial well-being, not being preyed upon, being able to sleep at night are not the things laws can provide. Advisers can.
But advice will never be free.
So stop trying to pretend it can be. Stop trying to construct laws that are a panacea for all ills. Just give us a simple and logical framework within which we can do the job of providing the best outcome we can in each client’s circumstances.
And when it comes to affordability, stop the senseless red tape that tries to ensure no financial consumer ever makes mistakes. They will, and if they learn from those mistakes they will be ahead in life.
Stop the legal highway robbery of financial advisers that comes from ASIC levies, the cost of mandated courses for advisers and inflated PII premiums. Stop the gouging by anyone who thinks they can get their nose in the financial advice trough. Stop the lies and media attacks on financial advisers by ISF’s, the FSC and other institutional bodies.
Stop all of that and let us get on with the job of improving the financial well-being of hundreds of thousands of Australians.
What a waste of tax payers money and 8 months of sensible discussion time lost for the industry….it is not rocket science….An ALP government is not going to take much notice of a Liberal appointed person pushing a Bank agenda….cherry picking some issues then binning most is a very likely outcome…..
As an advisor with a law degree but not a practice certificate and nearly 20 year’s experience I reckon I could not only provide advice on Wills and PoAs but draft them up. #How Hard can it be
It would be interesting to see who she has spoken to. It seems the FSC and Industry funds, are all getting more than equal representation…no surprise that their members will be the big winners from all of this.
It’s not surprising that a lawyer is setting the industry up for the next big royal commission.
Accountants in public practice should be able to give investment advice or a referral .They should understand tax ,family needs and include Real Estate in portfolios.
This is a joke right ??
This responsibility should have been given to someone that had extensive financial services experience specifically geared toward retail advice. My gut feel is that an emerging profession namely Paraplanning will be no longer be a viable career choice in the next 12-18 months…
So, Michelle Levy states that not all advice needs to be provided by a professional !!!!
Take Nomination of Beneficiary under a member’s super account for example.
This could well be a common query asked by a member to their super fund call centre.
The intricacies and complex details regarding beneficiary nomination is encompassing many factors including the client’s estate planning management, tax calculations regarding death benefits, split families, ex-partners, current partners & age of dependants and many more details.
Is Michelle Levy stating this sort of query can be handled by a non professional employee of a super fund ??
The QAR is likely to leave more bad tastes in more mouths than Hayne did. What a waste of time and effort.
Has there been any insight on what Government thought if the draft proposals? Given there is not likely to be wholesale changes to the initial draft?
Well I want my FASEA exam fee back, and my 3rd Degree Uni Fees back. Complete waste of money and ‘misleading and deceptive conduct’ on the part of the regulators.
Why? The qualification requirements are not expected to change.
“When I got the call, I was so excited. I did not think I would get it, because I knew they were speaking to a few people. My initial reaction was, ‘isn’t it an honour to have even been thought of’, and then as I spoke to the then minister Jane
Hume, I became more and more excited because I thought this is actually an area I know intimately.”
So Michelle Levy was cherry picked by Jane Hume, I think we all could see clearly the process involved, or lack of. And that how it works in the big end of town.