Clicky

Advisers significantly impacted by PC

The Productivity Commission (PC) may have been tasked with addressing the competitiveness and efficiency of superannuation but its final report had financial planners squarely in its sights impacting approved product lists (APLs) and specialist training for self-managed superannuation fund (SMSF) advisers.

A full reading of the PC’s final report reveals that it not only wants an immediate end to trailing commissions attaching to superannuation-related advice, but also a compulsory requirement to spell out the make-up of approved product lists and specialist training for those providing advice around setting up an SMSF.

At the same time, it has recommended that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) “focus more on the conduct of superannuation trustees and financial advisers and the appropriateness of products and urged “recurring thematic reviews on financial advice in superannuation”.

Related News:

The final report recommends that the Government “immediately amend the Corporations Act to ensure that the term ‘advice’ can only be used in association with ‘personal advice’ — that is, advice that takes into consideration personal circumstances”.

“The Government should also immediately require Australian Financial Service Licensees to disclose to ASIC, in relation to superannuation products:

· the number of products on their approved product list (APL)

· the proportion of in-house products on their APL

· the proportion of products recommended that are in-house

· the proportion of products recommended that are off-APL. ASIC should publish this information annually. ASIC should also conduct selected audits of the information received to facilitate assessment of the effectiveness of advisers in meeting clients’ best interests,” the report said.

On the question of SMSFs, it said the Government should:

· require specialist training for persons providing advice to set up an SMSF

· require persons providing advice to set up an SMSF to give prospective SMSF trustees a document outlining ASIC’s ‘red flags’ prior to establishment

· extend the proposed product design and distribution obligations to SMSF establishment.

The report also recommends that “ASIC should focus more on the conduct of superannuation trustees and financial advisers, and on the appropriateness of products (including for particular target markets) and disclosure”.

It also recommends requiring “all superannuation funds to publicly disclose to current and prospective members the proportion of costs paid to service providers that are associated with related-party outsourcing arrangements”.

The PC also recommends ASIC “undertake recurring thematic reviews on financial advice in superannuation, including advice in relation to choice platform products and SMSFs”.




Related Content

Advisers significantly impacted by PC

The Productivity Commission (PC) may have been tasked with addressing the competitiveness and efficiency of superannuation but its final report had fi...Read more

PC chose politics over member best interest

The Productivity Commission (PC) has been accused of developing a report aimed at addressing political issues but totally disregarding the best intere...Read more

PC calls for higher SMSF advice standards

As a year set to be dominated by new advice training standards for financial advisers begins, the SMSF Association has welcomed the Productivity Commi...Read more

Author

Comments

Comments

Drum, Drum, here they come. Hey Hey Ho Ho Financial Advisers have to go!

Gee out of nowhere Financial Planners are targeted again. Gee I wonder why.

Royal Commission: out of nowhere Mortgage Brokers are attacked. With less than 0.5% of complaints to AFCA being against Mortgage Brokers. Hmmm I wonder why????

How many of these lawyers and journos and consumer advocates have qualifications in Political Science, Political Economics? Go on have a look. Follow their Twitter accounts and watch who likes all each others post and the diverse supposedly independent organisations they are across. They are in Sky News, ABC, Fairfax, News Corp.

Look into their backgrounds. Who were their lecturers? Marx 2.0 might give you some hints. Google it.

Check out who are Fabian's as well.

Jordan Peterson is correct, if you don't start watching some of his YouTube videos you should now.

Surprise surprise.
Who would of thought all the heat from the RC coming onto the only group of individuals that are acting in consumers best interest, adviser and brokers. Hmm what could the institutions have to gain out of the advice industry being decimated, surely they wouldn't want a world where they can distribute their products direct to consumers without advice... Its almost as if the outcome is just what they were seeking all along, I trust they will do the right thing and look after customers best interests.

As we all know the banks called the royal commission on their terms. When your position is unassailable position in a concrete bunker on a battle field of course you will call in an airstrike to decimate your unprotected weaker sacrificial competitors. Banks get their hair slightly ruffled weaker participants get blown to pieces. Banks comb hair ready to face the next battle.

When there are no financial advisers left (who are required by law to act in their clients best interest) and everyone gets their advice from websites, tv commercials and phone sales people who will be blamed when everything goes wrong.

Probably still the remaining advisers for turning clients who aren’t HNW away due to the mountains of compliance paperwork we have to do to service them.

By the way. I have recommended retail funds and 100% of my super clients have investments which have outperformed Host Plus balanced investment over the past 10 years. I’m pretty sure this is the case for the majority of clients who can afford proper advice. How else would we get them to resign fee disclosure statements every 2 years?

And if you think I am crazy have a look a who will decide which super funds will make the top 10 - consumer groups and academics in the main specifically excluding those historically most capable of providing a science based input. "Eco friendly" and "ethical" investments will be thrust to the fore. They have also been put there because they are "not political" yet they are ALL about politics - THEIR politics. Wakey wakey people.

Add new comment