Advisers should not be tainted by stamping fees

13 March 2020
| By Mike |
image
image
expand image

The Association of Financial Advisers (AFA) has backed the removal of the stamping fee exemption arguing that very few financial advisers have ever utilised the regime but have nonetheless been blamed for exploiting a loophole. 

In a submission to Treasury, the AFA has lined up with the Financial Planning Association in suggesting that the stamping fee exemption runs contrary to the Future of Financial Advice (FoFA) rules and that the AFA supports those rules. 

“Whilst we do not support an exemption for capital raisings for investment entities, we do support the continuation of the original November 2012 exemption that applied for capital raisings for operating companies, which we believe supports the capital markets and investment in Australian companies,” the AFA submission said. 

However it said that, in supporting this tighter application of stamping fees, it was important to note that “we do not believe that this is applicable to our members, since it appears that they are not utilising it”. 

“It is our view that the availability of the stamping fees exemption for investment vehicles, such as listed investment companies and listed investment trusts, creates an unlevel playing field, since the receipt of similar benefits for the placement of investments into unlisted investment vehicles is not permitted under the FoFA legislation,” it said. 

“The AFA supports the FoFA ban on the payment of conflicted remuneration on the recommendation of investment products. We therefore support amending the stamping fee exemption, so that it is once again restricted to operating businesses and excludes investment entities.” 

“In the context that very few financial advisers utilise the stamping fee exemption, it has been a source of significant concern to our members, that the media has suggested that this exemption is a loophole that has been exploited by financial advisers. This is, in our view, an incorrect characterisation of this issue, and unfortunately another case where financial advisers have been unfairly treated.” 

Read more about:

AUTHOR

 

Recommended for you

 

MARKET INSIGHTS

sub-bg sidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

Avenue 17

I apologise, but, in my opinion, you are not right. I am assured. Let's discuss it. Write to me in PM, we will communica...

14 hours ago
Robert Segue

Sounds like a schoolyard childish scrap! take it behind the shelter sheds and sort it out! Really Publicly listed compa...

1 day 14 hours ago
JOHN GILLIES

iN THE END IT IS THE REGULATORS FAULT. wHILE I WAS WORKING I WAS ALLWAYS AMAZED AT HOW UNTHINKING SOME CLIENTS WERE! I...

1 day 18 hours ago

AustralianSuper and Australian Retirement Trust have posted the financial results for the 2022–23 financial year for their combined 5.3 million members....

9 months 2 weeks ago

A $34 billion fund has come out on top with a 13.3 per cent return in the last 12 months, beating out mega funds like Australian Retirement Trust and Aware Super. ...

9 months 1 week ago

The verdict in the class action case against AMP Financial Planning has been delivered in the Federal Court by Justice Moshinsky....

9 months 2 weeks ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND