Bodies behind exorbitant advice costs need to be held accountable

If the Government truly wants to make financial advice more affordable to Australians, it needs to hold the parties that are exponentially increasing the cost of advice accountable.

While its Better Advice Bill aims to streamline the number of bodies overseeing the financial advice industry, advisers have been crying out for just one. 

Even without increasing levies and fees to various bodies and licensees, the cost to practice is already close to $100,000 for businesses with just a few staff members.

Related News:

This brings us to looking at the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) adviser levy that has increased 340% over the last four years. 

The price of any product or fee increasing 340% in four years would rightly incite outrage from those impacted by the rise. 

While a Senate committee has called this kind of exponential increase “unsustainable”, it needs to hold the regulator accountable. 

While ASIC has said the fee increase had to do with advisers leaving the industry, the fact that it now needs to regulate fewer advisers does not make sense.

The expected increase from the year before is an extra $712 but the estimate is based on 21,308 advisers and latest figures show that the number of advisers is 19,079. The industry is expecting the levy to be much higher than the estimated $3,138 for every adviser.

Not only this, much of the levy is expected to be used on enforcement costs that advisers feel they should not be paying. Those costs were tied to Royal Commission actions that were mainly to do with large institutions that had since left the industry.

Despite paying such a high fee, one of the areas ASIC looked to fund using the levy was the Life Insurance Framework review but while the findings would be sent to Treasury, it would not release a public report. 

Transparency is important and if ASIC is continuously charging such high levies, it is unreasonable that they would not release the findings. 

The Government needs the regulator to answer questions on what exactly the levy is funding and hold them accountable if they do not find their explanations reasonable. 




Recommended for you

Author

Comments

Comments

Mr I Hate Advisers Frydenberg has driven the most extraordinary 8 year massacre of Advisers.
Frydenberg gave us the ASIC Levy.
Frydenberg gave us LIF.
Frydenberg gave us FARSEA.
Frydenberg stole grandfathered Comms.
Frydenberg has allowed and encouraged ASIC to be its worst ever Adviser over regulator.
Frydenberg had give us complete 2nd layer AFSL compliance and costs at platform level.
Frydenberg has an ongoing agenda of hate and persecution against Advisers.
Frydenberg MUST GO !!!!
Advisers and our clients must band together and get rid of Frydenberg.
Frydenberg OUT NOW !!!!!

Won't happen.

So you are not a big fan of the Treasurer?

If they had a whopping majority, they could afford to persecute a poorly represented and vulnerable section of the community. But they don't. They will pay for this at the next election.

My electorate is already Labor and I can't see it changing anytime soon. :P

The reality of the submission from Treasury to the RC is that no one other than Industry Super should be a fan of Treasury. Really disappointing for a western democracy.

ASIC is quite comfortable throwing the book at someone who forgot to document the issuance of an FSG but is accountable to No-one except itself.

If I had a choice, I'd shoot ASIC before Frydenburg. At least the curse of Frydenburg will eventually leave our lives. ASIC are like herpes, once you contract ASIC you can't rid yourself of it for the rest of your life.

Hopefully all advice regulation sits within the single disciplinary body ASIC is told to butt out. They are useless, clueless, biased and incompetent.

Add new comment