Bear in mind this 'fee for no advice' is a new construct of the current anti-adviser ASIC executives who are pro-ISA. It has never been written as legislation nor regulation, but now incorrectly, articles are stating it is a 'breach'.
This does not represent 'fee for no service' which is incorrectly indicated at all levels, whether in the media or even at the highly fallible Hayne led RC.
ASIC has put its own interpretation to what they deem appropriate charges only since the RC fiasco began. At no point prior to this have they stated that if a client had come into your office 4 or 5 times a year for 'counselling' or assistance with Centrelink forms or even to be calmed down because the markets had tumbled, that this was not adequate service.
It is only since the RC that they and inept for the role Hayne has indicated that if you did not do a ROA for 'no advice maintain position' as part of your paperwork for each of those occurences, even if you did filenote the discussions or assistance meticulously, then you should be refunding 100% of the fees.
Next 3 times I go to my dentist and he gives me a clean bill of health with no fillings required, or my GP for health checks, or even my estate planning lawyer who indicates that my Will is adequate as is, I won't expect to pay any fees whatsoever oh and while I am at it I must call the gym and get that refund for the 364 days I didn't go there!
In order to give you the best site experience, we need to know what kind of investor you are. Please select the title that best describes you below.
Financial Advisers - Investment
Financial Advisers - SMSFs
Individual Investors with SMSFs
Financial Advisers - Insurance
Accountants and Solicitors
Financial Services Professional