ASIC levy set to increase for FY 2020-21

Licensees will be hit with an Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) levy of at least $1,500 plus $3,138 per financial adviser for FY 2020-21, an increase of $712 from the previous financial year

ASIC released its ‘Cost Recovery Implementation Statement 2020-21’ that published estimated industry funding levies for the financial advice sector. 

The adviser ASIC levy was an increase from levy amounts from 2019-20 that was a minimum levy of $1,500 plus $2,426 per adviser. 

It said licensees that provided personal advice to retail clients on relevant financial products would have an estimated cost recovery amount of $71.354 million.  

ASIC said the level was based on the number of relevant providers that were: 

  • Registered on the financial advisers register at the end of financial year; and 
  • Authorised to provide personal advice to retail clients on behalf of the entity. 

The number of entities were 2,991 Australian financial services (AFS) licensees with 21,308 advisers. 

Licensees that provided personal advice to retail clients on products that were not relevant financial products would pay an indicative levy of $2,817. 

Licensees that provided general advice only would pay an indicative levy of $2,959. 

Licensees that provided personal advice to wholesale clients only would pay an indicative levy of $27. 

Insurance product distributors, based on 3,242 entites, would pay an indicative flat levy of $1,423.

ASIC noted its cost recovery implementation statement was open for submissions until 13 August, 2021, and that it would take into account stakeholder feedback in preparing the final statement.




Recommended for you

Author

Comments

Comments

Wow - how can I buy shares in ASIC?

This is ridiculous, when are our associations going to stand up and fight for us?
AFA = not worth a dollar.
FPA = not worth a cent.
AIOFP = support this association that ACTUALLY wants to fight for us advisers!!

they tried. they lost. the FPA, AFA, and SMSFA joined the three accounting bodies, CA/CPA/IPA. the government didn't care.

https://www.accountantsdaily.com.au/business/15422-monster-levy-accounti...

we lost.

It is clear to see that ASIC sees Advisers as a revenue stream for them.
The last massive increase was spun as the cost of surveillance,
which was interest as half of the year most of us were in lockdown due to the Pandemic.
The Government is determined to crush this industry and leave clients in the cold for advice.
Still I will carry and see the silver lining when I can

And this will only increase. It is their expected fee, but just like last year it will end up being much higher.
AFSL's will also have to pay another fee for life insurance; not sure why this wasn't mentioned in the article.

How do we report ASIC for fee for no service and for operating an unlicenced financial scam?

Bahahaha

ASIC keep sending statements to ASIC nominated representatives handling company affairs i.e. accountants after they have been advised the person is dead. This results in late fees. ASIC refuse to waive these fees as they say it is you responsibility to know when particular filing dates are due. ASIC is a prime example of an entity that is out of control.
Their costs are running wild and there is no constraint.
They are determined to bankrupt most small advisory firms.
Unfortunately those who are supposed to represent us are too easily intimidated by regulators and politicians.

The regulator is increasing the cost to provide advice and I thought they were trying to make advice accessible to everyone. Maybe they shouldn't spend so much money on failed regulation such as FASEA. Lucky for the wholesale clients, not so lucky for the retail clients....

Just a short note to Senator Jane Hume - this forecast increase certainly won’t be helping advisers deliver “affordable advice” as you have so regularly suggested us advisers should be delivering and consumers need. Please help the industry with action rather than catch phrases!

hi Ben, nice one, did you email it to Jane or just posting here?

If you want to get through to Jane Hume you'll need to create a Tik Tok video Ben.

ASIC and the government really do not want financial advisers around. It's so obvious. We are to be regulated and costed out of business but it will never be actually said out loud.

I second Ben Maw's comment. Another 29% increase is shameful. Why would anyone want to be a self-employed adviser anymore?

Cause we are suckers for punishment Tim :) ps hope your doing well mate, nice to see you still doing your thing! Cheers Ben

Well!! If this does not speed up the adviser exodus I will be very surprised
They think its a "bottomless pit" apparently !!??

ASIC, have you no shame after all the rhetoric about wanting to reduce the burden on advisers and lowering the cost of providing advice. Absolutely Disgusting!!!

Highway robbery. Where are the good guys? Aren't they supposed to show up before the end? Oh right, they're the ones lining their own pockets. Shame on ASIC, shame on the Government, shame on Josh Frydenberg, shame on Jane Hume, shame on FPA.

No they need the money to fund the affordable advice review....very logical really.

That was handed over to treasury, remember. But before doing so, ASIC poisoned it by manipulating the review towards freeing up red-tape for 'one-off' advice (which will benefit wholesale advisers and super fund who are not subject to these massive costs) with zero relaxation for independent financial advisers who are copping it in the neck

don't worry wildcat, it will get better, and you are well positioned. how about a recruitment drive at Deakin?

Just an estimate, the last estimate was woefully below the resulting ASIC Double Taxation Levy.
At least $4,000 per Adviser.
Plus $1500 AFSL for Advice
Plus $1500 AFSL for Life Insurance Advice
Plus Compo of Last Resort another $1,000 / Adviser for sure.
$5,000 at least per Advisers.
DISGUSTING DOUBLE TAXATION AT ITS WORST.
What about the hundreds of millions in fines from legal cases against the banks. Yep that's right straight to consolidated revenue. Advisers pay the fund ASIC's cases but Advisers get zero benefit of any wins.
FRYDENBERG'S DOUBLE TAXATION = FRYDENBERG HAS TO GO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's a very good point. At the very least the legal spend should be returned to "our" pool when there is a successful case result.

WTF Remus the clown ???
So Advisers are ASIC's legal Funders.
Yet we only get back some legal costs in a successful case ???
NO, NO, NO.
Any Legal Funders aim to get a return on their contribution.
Advisers have to fund both winning and losing ASIC cases.
And as ASIC is so stupid AISC lose more cases than they win.
Advisers have to receive every cent of the winning cases fines, of course less legal costs, to offset and compensate our ASIC funding payments / Double taxations Adviser Levies.

Wow. I agree with you and yet you jump down my throat on the detail anyway? You obviously feel very strongly about this topic, and I don't want to argue when I agree with you. Anyway it is a ridiculous situation to be in, and will just put even further downward pressure on advisor numbers.

It's only mooted as a suggested levy increase !
Here's the newsflash you've already read.
It's based upon current adviser numbers as to how ASIC calculates their "war Chest" to prosecute us.
Well as the numbers diminish, the multiplier increases.
God help the last man/woman still standing !!

You'll need very deep pockets whilst regulation and regulators including the government and other self interested groups continue their "viking" ways to, r * # e, ravage & pillage just like it was done in the good old days.

ASIC is completely and utterly out of control. There is no other way to put this.

Steady on. They are merely bureaucrats who have been told they can recoup all their costs from us. Their masters are Josh Frydenberg and the federal liberal government. They are the ones to blame; not ASIC.

Can you please return job keeper pls Mr Morrison so I can pay ASIC?

haha.

I have been made fun of as being too pessimistic, when I have suggested a 5,000 AR number by 2026, there are pollyanna's out there who think "it will get better" and good for you, being positive and optimistic is good, but I prefer to be pragmatic, practical and realistic.

remember neither the government nor the regulator care, they offer platitudes and lead with motherhood statements like, "make advice affordable again" or (MAAA, like the sound bleating sheep make), MAAA'.

it means nothing. and they will do nothing. and yes, I have met with my local MP.

pretty soon it will cost $80,000 to put an adviser on the desk, that is without adding their salary and super and other oncosts.

and there are academics suggesting we create a "defined pathway" for new graduates. the government is defining a pathway for us, and it looks like a big green sign that reads "EXIT".

haha you gotta laugh at the total incompetence.

I will fund this increase by cancelling my FPA membership.

I bet you don't. You will whinge and whine and moan about the FPA, and constantly threaten to leave, but you won't do it. The people who complain the most about the FPA are the dinosaurs who were gifted grandfathered CFPs. And they are unwilling to walk away from that gift.

I am the literal opposite.

Why would you have been a member of that mob who have done nothing for advisers for years.

Isn't it time the AFA and FPA STOOD UP and earnt the memberships we pay and say NO enough is enough. Really how long must the cartel abuse go on for

How much do the financial coaches, finfluencers, financial specialists, money adviser, finance builders pay to asic? The fraudsters like caddich.
Might hang up the AFSL and do some financial coaching instead.

Add new comment