Submitted by Angus Stephen on Thu, 2024-02-08 09:12

I suggest Matt further reflect on his proposal lest he look like a fool. This is akin to shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic. It is the overall quantum of the fee rather than who pays it that is the issue. If Licensee's wear more of the cost, they'll simply adjust the fees they charge the authorised representatives to reflect their increased costs. In fact, it might cost advisers more if they have to load up the fee to deal with the unpredictable nature of the fee or add a profit margin to their costs. In my opinion, our colleague in the West should be more concerned with AFSL holders and Advisers funding ASIC's action against unlicensed individuals and organisations as if we are some sort of benevolent litigation funding body.

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

MARKET INSIGHTS

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

Time to Go

I really can't see how getting rid of the safeguards with no other changes achieves anything at all. We're still the ea...

1 day 4 hours ago
Rob

Nowhere else in the world do innocent bystanders have to pay for the losses incurred to investors due to failed business...

1 day 7 hours ago
Time to Go

Yet everything states profitability is much higher in a larger practice. As a smaller planning practice it is a hard sl...

3 days 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 1 week 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 4 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 1 week ago