Submitted by John Smith on Tue, 2024-02-06 13:30

There is a balance between consumer protection and the freedom to be in control of your own decisions. On the one hand, the test protects retail investors from poor/no/lazy advice where it should be given. On the other, it removes an investors ability to access investments which has risks they are happy to accept. The powers that be ought to take care not to slip into 'nanny state' regulation. Why should investors be closed out from opportunities only the very wealthy can access?

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
 

MARKET INSIGHTS

sub-bg sidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

Simon J

What do you think the motivation is behind this broadly worded legislation Peter? Is it to make it harder for retail ...

12 hours 49 minutes ago
PETER JOHNSTON- AIOFP

The FSC should have thought about this when they cooperated with O'Dywer/Frydenberg/Hume/FPA/AFA 10 years ago when this...

15 hours 26 minutes ago
Simon J

Sick of it. Canberra is a joke....

16 hours ago

AustralianSuper and Australian Retirement Trust have posted the financial results for the 2022–23 financial year for their combined 5.3 million members....

10 months ago

A $34 billion fund has come out on top with a 13.3 per cent return in the last 12 months, beating out mega funds like Australian Retirement Trust and Aware Super. ...

9 months 3 weeks ago

The verdict in the class action case against AMP Financial Planning has been delivered in the Federal Court by Justice Moshinsky....

10 months ago