The possibility of having to comply with opt-in requirements has emerged as a minor issue for members of the Boutique Financial Planning Principal’s Group (BFPPG) attending the group’s annual conference in Brisbane.
In two separate sessions on ‘hot topics’ within the industry up for discussion, opt-in was not mentioned once, with the most contentious and widely discussed issues being risk insurance commissions, and the best way to charge for advice around risk; as well as the ideal way to charge for general advice.
Other topics that came up for discussion included exchange traded funds and the best way to use them within a portfolio, if at all; onerous compliance requirements and the best way to manage those; limited managed discretionary accounts; and IT systems and solutions.
Individual attitudes towards opt-in within the group ranged from those who supported the measure to those who strongly opposed it. But most seemed resigned to the measure and many members stated that they saw every client at least once per year and did not feel it would create a risk to their business or a substantial extra cost.
Those who supported the measure said opt-in would only have a large negative effect on planners with inactive clients, and those who opposed it did so for reasons including concerns over the extra cost and because they did not think it was the Government’s place to mandate how a financial planning contract should be conducted.
BFPPG president Claude Santucci said while he was philosophically opposed to the measure, he did not believe planners in boutique Australian Financial Services Licences would be as negatively affected as some other business models, particularly those with large numbers of inactive clients.
