Adviser survey urges ASIC to be facilitative, lenient

Virtually all financial advisers want the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) to take a more facilitative and understanding approach as both advisers and clients seek to navigate the panic-inducing volatility of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a survey conducted by Money Management.

Asked what would help them navigate the current period of uncertainty, nearly 93% of respondents to the survey answered that they believed ASIC should adopt a more facilitative approach, while the second biggest issue nominated by respondents was a more supportive approach on the part of their dealers.

Asked what their clients should or should not be doing at the current time, virtually all respondents nominated that clients should be discouraged from panic selling.

Related News:

Asked what would be the worst thing their clients could do, well over 90% of respondents nominated ‘crystallising losses’.

Most advisers believe it will take between one and five years for their clients to fully recover from the financial and economic consequences flowing from the pandemic, with most of the advisers working harder than ever before to provide the right advice.

The survey revealed more than half of the adviser respondents (51.72%) to the survey reporting that client enquiries are running at levels much higher than expected, while a further 30.34% said it was about in line with what could be expected during a period of increased market volatility.

The survey revealed that 86% of respondents believed it would take between one and five years for investors to recover from the consequences of the current market.

What further support do you believe is required for planners to carry on businesses for another six months?

Source: Money Management




Recommended for you

Author

Comments

Comments

they will not be facilitative. do not keep asking these people. in fact, they are on a warpath. they seek to destroy every adviser even if it is just mere technicalities be warned.

ASIC audit advisers randomly now. now is your chance to destroy small businesses and collapse the economy. you need to get on this right now.

go on destroy. that is your job.

Having worked as a auditor for a big four bank, I could not disagree with your comment more. From what I have seen, the only advisers or licensees ASIC bans is the ones that provide poor advice. The type of advice where the adviser consistently places their interests above the clients. There are a lot of greedy, dumb and self interested advisers out there that still think it is the 90's. Switch super to a vertically aligned product and use the basis for their advice increased diversification, charge dead clients ongoing service fees, charge ongoing service fees where the client has not had a review for 3 plus years and consistently churn insurance with no basis for advice. I am glad ASIC is getting rid of these cowboys. And NO, I do not work for ASIC!

With the liquidity issues of the Industry funds, maybe the the advice around more diversification was correct now.

Jefferson, you made many statements in your post. This one "There are a lot of greedy, dumb and self interested advisers out there that still think it is the 90's. Switch super to a vertically aligned product and use the basis for their advice increased diversification" stands out and as you have asserted Advisers are "Greedy" and really, you said it "Dumb",
I would like to ask you - what are your qualifications to make this statement considering you "using you also said "Switch super to a vertically aligned product and use the basis for their advice increased diversification..". Do you have any investment training or have you, as it appears have the regulators, assumed that diversification is worthless and the opposition (AKA Industry Super or the "non aligned" one stop shop for Intra Fund Advice, Product Advice and Product sales it appears) have better performance. Have you ever read a PDS of say Host Plus? I can't imagine placing a client into Host Plus, but I would find it difficult justify moving then out of Host Plus due to audits and assumptions the audit process brings to the process. Really, what client completes a risk profile at Host Plus Asset allocation? Not many in my experience.
Have a read of this article as I don't have the time to explain what diversification is to you right now..https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/industry-funds-pathetic-plea...
Additionally, the "Ongoing service fees" you mention have zero to do with a "review" as though who have been through the "fee for no service look back" will tell you. Service is not part of a review - a review is advice and service no matter how much was performed is not relevant.
If you want to start on "fees for no service" lets talk about "Intra Fund Advice fees", charge to all, no requirement to provide and charged ongoing, and the Advice is not actually Advice.
Your audit checklist is a very narrow set of questions which basically means the Adviser is not able to use diversification to move someone and the unspoken rule seems to be that the regulator wants peoples super in the Industry Funds as they appear to have better returns and lower fees. But have you actually done any research into the investments of Industry Super? Probably not.

keep dreaming... ASIC are living in a parallel universe.. everything is rosy and they hate financial planners

ASIC is basically forked. They're manned by ex-lawyers who couldn't make it in the private sector or career bureaucrats. This will blow over and their memory is selective. They will persecute us if we have a comma out of place, and yet watch and see the ISA & not-coping industry funds who couldn't mobilise to provide advice get yet another free pass from scrutiny.

Trust me people, this is worse than playing monopoly with your older sister controlling the bank!!

if there are two societies, each one equal to the other in every respect but one has more lawyers than the other, the society, that has more lawyers will be worse in every imaginable way than the other society.

lawyers are the bane of every society's existence, they are a threat to all, the parade as justice seekers in fact what they are, are wolves in sheep's clothing waiting to pounce on those that are most vulnerable and can least defend themselves. the explosion of class actions funded by litigation funders is a good example.

there is no such thing as a good lawyer, almost all lawyers are wicked and evil.

Just like the review in to the family law courts. Rather than making a fairer, easier system that avoids court, lawyers have argued that no change is required, basically to protect their billings. ASIC needs more people with practical experience, and not adhere to academics, lawyers, political groups, or consumer groups who all operate on theory, at the expense of practicality.

ASIC is from what I can full of Lawyers - the more regulations and rules they make, the more Lawyers will able to make a case against Financial planners and the more Lawyers that will be able to make a living off the back of that. I just can't see how or why ASIC will change - there is simply no self interest in it for ASIC but to continue. Remind yourself, exactly how much money did ASIC get in additional to normal from the RC? And they can bill as they please - just send out the invoice. And really, $70,000,000 to put a few staff into AMP, CBA, ANZ, WBC and NAB - what are they going to investigate that they should not already be doing. Really, $70,000,000 for that?

We have spent the past 3 years turning grandfathered trail off. However a number of the super funds have retained our name on client statements. Other clients are calling us because they can't get through to their super fund and we were the last known contact. We are helping these people, giving general advice about investments and the govt announcements, even helping them with paperwork. I spent 2 hours last week on the phone to help a person. The roles have now reversed and we are providing "service for no fee". Maybe we should invoice the super funds for work they should be doing but can't because they don't have the call centre staff to deal with the workload. I even had a call from an old client who moved to an industry fund because they couldn't get through. I didn't turn them away, I calmed them down and helped them understand what was happening. Swings and roundabouts ASIC. How is this included in any lookback?
God forbid they (or our dealer) require us to produce an SoT/RoA/SoA for what a super fund should be doing. We should probably turn them away but that is not what advisers do.

i know you think you did the right thing. and the majority of people and the public would agree.

but, you did the wrong thing. Why? think about it.

you did the wrong thing. you just did.

I have thought about it and either you are being cryptic or I'm stupid because you think I am. Is it because we are helping things to work when you think we shouldn't? Please explain?

you absolutely did the right thing. 100% moral it would be immoral to profit from people's misfortunes (note, this is how lawyers make money by gouging people at just the times they hurt mos).

every good adviser would have done what you did. great work. you are a credit to the profession.

no, i am stating the reason ASIC would give you when they reviewed your conduct to ban you. that's their logic.

Yep. No different to the revenue raising road speed camera operators. They're certainly not working from home.
Just tell them you have Corona Virus. The only upside is that with Parliament not sitting until October, their draconian Treasury measures have been stalled for a while. The hypocrisy being that they are prepared to spend $130 billion on jobkeeper payments to every coffee shop & publican, but they are quite happy to send the advisers to the wall.

Add new comment