The problem with FOFA is that the stated "objective of the Future of Financial Advice (FoFA) reforms had been to ensure advice was in the best interests of clients and not put out of reach of those who would benefit from it" is totally untrue.
The objective of FOFA was the exact oposite to this. The objective of FOFA (which was dreamt up by the FSC) is to limit access to FULL advice for the majority of clients by culling adviser numbers and making it more expensive to provide full advice, thus allowing the big institutions to push their junk products through the General Advice alligned channel without having to comply with BID or do statements of advice which will increase their underlying profit and share prices to the detriment of the mum and dad clients who will be forced to deal directly with the product manufacturers.
I have no problems with accountant providing advice as they are in a position of trust and at least equally ethical as everyone else in society (not including lawyers who are all self interested and evil). However they, and everyone else selling a financial product should all have to adhere to the same rules, compliance and training as everyone else selling financial products.
Why cant we just have one regime and process for everyone dealing with financial products and be done with it. SOA and best interests duty for EVERY financial product sale.
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