Industry exit no excuse to avoid regulatory costs

Those institutions which have left financial advice should still be forced to pay their share of regulatory costs, according to The Advisers Association (TAA).

As the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) regulatory levy was increased significantly for another year, the organisation felt major banks and institutions should pay their share. The levy had increased by $712 from the previous financial year.

Neil Macdonald, TAA chief executive, said that in leaving the industry, the major banks had left smaller advisers to foot the bill for their mistakes.

Related News:

“We understand that ASIC's hands are tied in relation to cost recovery, and we are not opposed to a user-pays model, however the users who caused the current regulatory cost burden are not being made to pay for it,” Macdonald said.

“By exiting advice the big banks, despite being largely responsible for some of the poorest behaviours, are able to avoid paying.”

As firms were being asked to pay $3,138 per adviser, Macdonald suggested imposing an exit fee for the major banks that had exited advice networks or were in the process of doing so. This would be a fee calculated as a three-year multiple of the adviser levy per adviser based on their adviser numbers at the time of the Hayne Royal Commission.

This would be around $10,000 per adviser, he said.                             

“As we said earlier this year, expecting small business advisers and ultimately their clients to keep paying ever-increasing costs for the sins of the past, largely committed by the big end of town, is unconscionable,” Macdonald said.

Recommended for you




I agree with Neil that this levy should be passed on to the big end of town, but I'm opposed to the whole idea of funding a government department with a specific targeted levy. This thing has no bottom, and what are the parameters and limits to ASIC in regards to expensive projects they decide to undertake? Let be frank, if I was the head of ASIC why wouldn't I keep finding things to hold on to my team and position for years to come? Giving a government organisation the power to write their own cheques is a recipe for disaster. Who's on our side here?

Spare me.
The Dinosaurs in the Museum are not usually consulted as to the ticket price of admission.

"Cal", you sound like an entitled nobody pimply millennial loser employee who's still living at home with their parents. "Junior' is about right. Tell me, what do you want to be when you grow up?

The dinosaurs in the museum don't have to pay it, Dimwit.

What a lovely person you are. ASIC or Treasury?

In addition to my original comment, people who visit the museum have the choice to pay the fee or not enter.

We have a right to earn a living, and it is this fee which will eventually take away that right. On the current system, when there is one financial adviser left, he will have to pay the entire levy himself, and that just won't be possible. It's regulatory capture at its worst and will become unsustainable...

In reality, the basic human right to earn a living is quickly being taken away from financial planners.

As much as I want the big end to pay, and this adviser levy to be calculated differently, I'm not a fan of back payments. When I finish up in this profession, I am walking away, not paying for a few more years!

Add new comment