AFA to make specific recommendations to ASIC

With financial advisers busy helping clients navigate the market volatility surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic with almost all of them doing phone or video consultations, the Association of Financial Advisers (AFA) will be making representations to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) for a realistic regulatory approach.

AFA general manager, policy & professionalism, Phil Anderson said that rather than just asking ASIC to adopt a facilitative approach through the current situation, the AFA would be making some specific recommendations based on advisers’ real-time experience.

Financial advisers have told Money Management that their major concern is dealing with the inevitable paperwork which accumulates when providing advice, particularly lengthy statements of advice (SOAs) and client data documents.

Related News:

They said that the situation was made even more problematic because, in many instances, the advisers were working from home without their usual access to office infrastructure and support.

 “Advisers are busy at the moment, at they should be,” Anderson said. “But we’re very conscious of the range of issues confronting them and the timeframes within which they are working with respect to ROA’s and SOA’s.”

However, he said that rather than seeking some generalist undertakings from ASIC, the AFA would be making some specific recommendations reflecting the reality confronting advisers

Recommended for you




Yeah agree on advice to deliver then you send off to paraplanning, next week the market moves down and that advice which could have been done the same day put the client in a better position is now not not in the clients best interest.

Something is got to give.. the rules and regulation are causing client determent. eg advisers can no longer deliver good advice with speed.

no one is listening. and if the AFA and FPA keep saying this, asic won't make us do one soa and roa, they will make us do two each for the same client making sure the content of the first soa is understood and better explained in the second SoA.

so let's get back to following the law, it cannot be challenged

clients can't be helped that's the law

it's a total mess this industry

only people enjoying it are leeches lawyers and useless compliance people who couldn't do anything else for a living it makes me violently ill this industry and how many bloodsucking leeches have infested this industry slimely vermins good for nothing useless junk

many of your posting here offer good ideas, they would benefit the consumer and the public, but do not underestimate the stupidity of bureaucrats. and do not put your names on this and hope you are doing the posting via an incognito window on your laptops.

these people are total morons, that's why they work for government, any enterprising person with any gumption would work either for themselves or private enterprise. these are the leaners of society and so they will come at you at the worst possible time to do an audit.

be warned, they are out to destroy you so please go back to your RoA's or SoA's or whatever file notes you were taking. i come here to take breaks while i add no value to anyone and typing up the same file note over and over again

yeah, but this needs to be on a permanent basis not just for now. it's a total mess this industry it is collapsing because of the overregulation

we are treated like animals, no wait, even they have rights.

When a client contacts an adviser in these current circumstances and directs the adviser to switch all their super and/or pension investments to Cash effective immediately, is very anxious, stressed and adamant they do not want to place their funds at any further risk of losses, what does the adviser do?
The adviser says before I can facilitate this action, I need to provide the latest version of my FSG, update your client data/fact find and produce either an SOA or ROA in regard to this matter.
This is the utter impracticality of the real world of advice and what clients expect to be able to be effected in an effective and timely manner.
Secondly, the client lives 2 hours away, does not have the technology to print and re-scan documents back in a timely manner and just wants their trusted adviser to assist them in whatever way they can.
This is the face of reality.
This is why the proposed legislative measures to again significantly increase the compliance burden on advisers and the cost impact of running their business which will in turn be passed on to their client needs to be re-considered.
Significantly increasing compliance responsibilities and red tape and effectively making advice much harder and more expensive to access is disadvantaging those who need advice, guidance, experience and direction from someone they can trust.
It must be sensible and practical to be an advantage to the client.
If it is not, it has and will become a disadvantage to the consumer and the dismantling of financial advice businesses across the country will continue......and that is not good for anyone.
It is time the Govt listened to the voice of reason and to work with, rather than against the financial advice profession to
arrive at an outcome that will deliver effective, cost efficient advice in a timely manner to the Australian public.
If Josh Frydenberg and Jane Hume want to actually do something beneficial for Australians it is to stop the relentless pressure and loading up of ridiculous duplicated compliance requirements.

Here is question for you. With FASEA you MUST act in their best interest. Should you refuse to follow the legitiment request or not. Which is better for the client? Does a legitiment request outrank a best interest test???

Interesting perspective.
Is it better to act on the client's request in these current circumstances or is it better to tell the client their request is not in their best interest and refuse to act. ?
The client calls to instruct the adviser to do something. The client believes their decision is in their best interest.
The adviser says I cant talk to you until I complete a full assessment and put forward a recommendation.
The client states they don't want a recommendation, they want the adviser who has looked after their affairs for 10 years to act on their instruction.
The adviser states they will have to issue a document to the client stating they have not recommended the action and that it was the clients decision to enact the alteration.
The client says they will effectively cease the relationship if the adviser does not act on their instruction immediately.
The request is extremely time and circumstantially sensitive.
The adviser has done nothing wrong, other than refuse to act or to follow the ridiculous compliance procedures expected.
This is how life works....not from an ideologically warm and fuzzy academic perspective crowing on and on about the ethical nature of whether the adviser should or should not act.
This about a servant and master relationship and the master is the client.
Get this stuffed up system fixed before it destroys the whole fabric of what an adviser/client relationship is all about.

Spot on. With the ASIC advice requirements we can't help clients right now. The best we can do is stop clients cashing in at a bottom. (Uni super $2bn and Sun Super stating unadvised clients cashing in). Imagine the massive damage that can be done long term to those clients.
We need a facility to position assets within a set range with a file note. Maybe a 70% investor can go between 50-85% following a discussion over the phone and a standard file note. All agreed to and outlined in a SOA provided beforehand. Use the same assets they currently have. Just alter the exposure. This could take 30 mins for a client in a decent platform (including call and notes)
Imagine the value we could create with a ph call and a re balance in the current climate? Most portfolios are underweight growth right now. Re balance to the asset allocation (using their existing investment option, not a new option or a new fund) and watch the portfolios rebound hard.
Under current advice processes it's atleast 3 hours per client. Some will have to miss out. Poor them.

I once asked ASIC about this. They expect you to work magic and contact all clients and fully explain all advice within a very short period of time..... it is potentially your problem rather than the client's problem.

that's right. you did not do whatever it takes, that may be not sleeping or eating. who is to say. remember, reasonableness, rationality applies to others not to financial planners they are to be kicked when they are down and treated like feral animals

it's your fault you cannot comply with the regulations. they are there not to look at but to adhere to, and it's not just the regulations the FASEA code of ethics are in full play. you did not comply, you did not meet best interest, you did not do everything possible, so you are fucked.

but there is an option. become a scum bag lawyer no problems there you can leave your conscience at the bar (pun intended) ok you have a problem and will have sleepless nights with your conscience bothering you.

well you are in the same state now ain't you ?

financial planning is unworkable all onus on the adviser, no return commensurate with the risk

goes to show you how much contempt they have for financial planners. friends this is painful to admit but the view of all stakeholders including professional associations, lawyers working in financial services, lawyers not working in financial services, consumer interest groups, vested interested, bank fat cats, dealer group fat heads, dealer group compliance people, paraplanners, business owners of paraplanning services companies and all and sundry think :

a. financial planners are lowly qualified criminals
b. would sell their grandmother and put her entire savings into an abalone farm
c. blood sucking leeches

i think we have to accept our position being the above then work back to repair our image.

however, just like this virus, I think it will get much much worse before it gets better.

I think we will have to do 5 SoA's per client rather than 1, I mean it will get that hard, most of us struggle to get out of bed each day so I am bracing for even more regulations to come. they won't stop until we vomit blood.

imagine the confusion when the product issuers also contact clients for opt-in wtf the client is just going to give up leaving us in the lurch as they can't be bothered dealing with so many hassles

Meanwhile, over at the FPA, Dante and Benjamin are trying to figure out if Ongoing Trail Commission from Insurance is actually an Ongoing Fee arrangement. USELESS AS ...

What a pair Kenneth and ASIC!!
Kenny who could not forsee any reason why a my super fund member would ever need or wish to seek advice. Lets ignore recent data from industry funds where switched to cash at the bottom of the market as opposed to advised clients.
ASIC rigid SoA and research explain to us how we attend to provision of advice in timely manner for clients which is in their best interests but NO it is all about ASIC our corporate cop who is after scalps and tick a box red tape.
Yes let chase rigid annual opt in with our tired health professionals or older clientele who are self isolating and are seeking our assurances at this time and not to mention bushfires previously.
If this does evidence the value of advice and need for flexibility heaven help us !

Add new comment