Financial planners face multiple disciplinary layers

Financial planners are facing the prospect of multiple layers of scrutiny under plans outlined by the Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg today with a single, central disciplinary body sitting alongside code-monitoring authorities.

Frydenberg used today’s update of the Government’s response to the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry to clarify the two levels of scrutiny for financial planners.

The Government said, that in line with the recommendations of the Royal Commission, it would be “creating a new disciplinary system for financial advisers that will include a single, central disciplinary body”.

Related News:

“The new body will be responsible for the registration, monitoring and sanctioning of financial advisers,” it said. “This Royal Commission recommendation builds on the Government’s professional standards reforms to raise the educational, training and ethical standards of financial advisers.”

However, it said that the Government would also “proceed with monitoring of the Code of Ethics introduced as part of those reforms, which require financial advisers, from 15 November 2019, to subscribe to a code monitoring body that will enforce the Code of Ethics from 1 January 2020”.

Recommended for you




bye bye fpa. there is no requirement to be your member now.


1. Licensee
2. Code Monitor
3. "Single Disciplinary body"
4. ASIC?

You forgot
5. TPB
7. Choice
8. ABC media

9. Austrac
10. Privacy Commissioner
11. AFCA
12. CALC
13. Sydney Morning Hysteria / Melbourne outrAge

Welcome to Australia.. the land of the long, endless red tape. It's a Country where opportunity is squashed and the public servant rules..

Welcome to Australia.. the land of the long, endless red tape. It's a Country where opportunity is squashed and the public servant rules..

The owners of failed apartments are wishing for more red tape. The people who lost investment capital because of poor advice and of embezzlement are not looking for less red tape. The financial advice sector and its associations can blame themselves for the present calls for more scrutiny and higher standards.

Financial coaches require no read tape so the red tape is useless.

tpb, afa, fpa, afca

Of course...... yet another body set by government to add to the already ridiculous amount of duplication we already have, adding no doubt more costs onto adviser and in turn clients. I laughed the other day when the Morrison Government announced an inquiry aimed at reducing red tape.....this really just adds to that joke! I guess in a day and age where we have a succession of weak and ineffective Government (both Liberal and Labor), that govern based upon ideology and simply what they think is popular in the public eye, rather than what is right or practical, this is what we have to expect.

Yep. Absolutely incredible that a government which is supposedly trying to reduce red tape should introduce yet another layer of excessive regulation. Frydenberg has decided to abandon Liberal party policy and principles, to join the financial adviser bashing bandwagon. He is a disgrace, just like O'Dwyer. The poor decisions of these two unprincipled incompetents will have long lasting negative impacts on Australian consumers.

FPA will be a Code Monitoring Body. What for what they will charge licensees / advisers to carry out that roll.

When will they implement a Royal Commission recommendation to build on the Government’s professional standards reforms to raise the educational, training and ethical standards of politicians?
Will NEVER happen. But they are prepared to throw stones at everyone else!

Ridiculous over-regulation . Almost time to retire !

what do you mean Almost? It is time isn't it!

I think there should be a Royal Commission into the Royal Commission for the benefit of the Royal Commission to ensure that the Royal Commission is following the mandate of the Original Royal Commission and should be monitored by another Non Royal Commission Body to effect what the Royal Commission is doing!!

Read what it says. The fact is, FPA's shameful performance in the RC with Sam "you can't touch me" Henderson clearly demonstrated that the institutional influence over the FPA and AFA meant they have no balls to self regulate. FASEA have shown that educationally they aren't up to it either. Just get used to the fact that this is an imposed shift in culture. Push- back, complaining and whinging isn't getting anyone anywhere. It is the end of an era. The survivors will be those who are S 923a compliant, meet with clients as they should and genuinely put their client's best interests first. It's not about preserving the existing business models, it is about adapting to a new model.

“The new body will be responsible for the registration, monitoring and sanctioning of financial advisers,” so does this mean ASIC can go back to sleep now they have secured there extra funding from us? Will the new body charge us another levy?

Sorry, but this has become a total farce/joke. The cost of advice will become prohibitive for those who really need it and the Property Spruikers and Mortgage Brokers just continue to sail with the wind. Yep, sadly, retirement is becoming the preferred option for this Old Timer.

Mortgage Brokers are gone in two years as well.

It's all about the "30sec sound bite" for the evening news. For some reason I keep singing the old Skyhooks song "horror movie"

Yep, if you can barely read and write you can be a politician, no quals required for that. We are truly governed by muppets - apologies to Kermit & company - with little to no understanding of whatever it is that they're supposed to be engaged in. Canberra is the ministerial equivalent of musical chairs where the participants swap portfolios like they change their socks. I despair.

There's going to be more code monitoring bodies than Financial Planners soon.....

I think there are also more people providing a service on how to get leads, education, how to this, how that.
makes you wonder what they are all going to do down the track doesn't it.

What have you lot of complainers got to worry about? I have presumed that you are all honest, incorruptible, and reputable financial advisers and planners. You should support the removal of incorrigible planners (and have less competitors).

I don't fear the scrutiny Hedware, I fear the impact that satisfying the multiple scrutineers will have on the time I can spend on billable activities.... Seeing clients is how I make a living, and like it or not, making a living is why I go to work everyday... otherwise i'd be on a beach somewhere.

I take your point about excessive scrutiny but most people would want scrutiny to protect their investments and want oversight of advisors, banks, and the rest. They are justified in having these wants given what came out of the Royal Commission. As reported in this august publication are regular reports of some planner being banned or in the sin bin. The associations representing planners have been derelict in policing their members and penalising the good and honest planners - they do exist.

Hedware, this is the new model which has been around for years under Industry Super. Do you see any conflict here?

We do support their removal Hedware. But it could have been done with a fraction of the additional complexity and cost being indirectly imposed on consumers.

For union fund hacks like yourself, adding cost and complexity to financial advice is a great thing because more people will be pushed away from good advice and end up making financial decisions based on deceptive PR and advertising. However for consumers that is a terrible outcome.

So another layer/cost.
Who in their right mind would would commence a profession as a Financial Planner under this regime?
Requiring a Bachelors Degree 24 subjects to pay:
Licensee fees
Professional body fees
Regulator fees so they can come and stop your business in a heartbeat
Fasea fees
TSB fees
Now a new fee for another layer!
For all this regulation, education, costs and time a cut in income and it appears a movement for fee scrutiny.
Good job Haine and your public pandering to a Government that is only interested in public perception and not the interests of the “quiet Australians” they so want us to think they do.
Finding a Financial Planner will be like a search for the Thylacine for middle Australians!
Is this the result you fools wanted?

That’s what being a professional is about. From your complaint, you are concluding that financial planners are not up to joining the professional ranks. The

Hedware you really are a moron!

That is not at all what the previous comment stated. It is not about not wanting to be professional. It is all about risk versus financial reward. This industry is so over regulated that there will be very few financial planners in 5 years time and those that are left will be charging like top lawyers.

As a financial planner with many lawyers as clients they cannot believe how little we earn for the amount of paperwork and the constant changing rules we have to operate under. They also can't believe the constant government and media bashing.

I wonder what job you do Hedware, apart from trolling financial planners???

I suspect Hedware works in the union super PR department. They have a team of flunkeys whose job is to influence public opinion via online comments.

Hedware, the majority of advice if that is what you want to call it is being delivered via Intra Fund Advice, with no BID, costs covered by a charge to every single member but not delivered to all members. This method of delivery will increase.

You’d have to think that this body will be a specialist division of, or a replacement for, ASIC’s role in this space.

Despite the penchant for largesse in the area of public wages, ASIC can only be puffed so far. I would see this being a specific division rather than having some of the ASIC staff monitor a single FP where they might be best used to look under the hood of bigger CAR’s...

It's OK bleating on about excess regulation here but one would suspect that you would be lucky if one MP or Senator was aware of this.

May one suggest that anybody who has a complaint of the increase in regulation write to their local Coalition MP and point out the multiple layers of regulators and regulations. If your in an Opposition seat, write to the Coalition Senators in your State or Territory. In addition, write to all the relevant Ministers. However, do it nicely and stick to the facts.

Further, may one suggest quoting from the Prime Minister's spray to public servants yesterday (i.e. 19 August) regarding what their role is supposed to be and use relevant parts.

The more they hear the more they will listen.

Just another example for you of the madness of the regulators/regulations. The recently introduced Protecting your Superannuation Package that in effect contained three measures has three regulators looking after different bits.

The ATO is responsible for inactive low-balance accounts, ASIC is responsible for the transitional period of the Members' Interest Bill that has not passed, and APRA has the fee capping and life insurance bit.

I think it's also time to make clients more aware how much all this over regulation is costing them. Advisers should start itemising their quotes and invoices along the following lines:

Advice & implementation $2,000
Regulatory Overhead $1,000
GST $ 300
Total $3,300

In my business regulatory overhead now comprises about a third of total costs. Of course all businesses have regulatory overhead, and it is typically absorbed into their standard pricing. That's probably reasonable when it's 5% or less. But when it gets up to a third and just keeps growing, consumers need to know so they too can complain to their MPs.

very low fees, should be $5,000 plus GST minimum

charge out rate should be $500 per hour at the least

@ Hedware,
The last time I looked you can't legislate around bad or crooked behaviour .
God is yet to produce the perfect human being.
Since FSR in 2000, there has been a plethora of legislation to improve the quality of advice and for the large part, that's been addressed for many.
Why don't you own up to the fact that the Banking sector and institutions owning Licenses including the ISC should have been the brunt of the Royal Commission, not the majority of financial planners outside that scope.
The over-regulation will serve no one's interest including the small majority of advisers who think they will survive in this new environment.
Sooner or later there will be another event that shows failure in the current over-regulation and that should be enough for everyone to consider leaving the industry and opening a fruit shop.

I would not seek advice from any of you. I will work it out myself. As a Trinity college Cambridge phd in mathematical statistics I find the preposterous assertions about the value of advice deeply offensive. As if there is any controlled experiment behind such nonsense. As a group you are deluded. Drug companies, slimy though they are, at least understand the theory behind drug effectiveness.

Dear potential customer, if your qualification are recent perhaps you should consider getting yourself a profession like Financial Planning. You will need to complete a new specific degree in Financial Planning, complete the FASEA exam and impress a qualified Financial Planner to train you for a full year. Or you could work it out yourself but that is like me saying I have a calculator so why do I need a PhD in Mathematics.

A PhD in mathematics and ignorance,
I’ve been a Financial Adviser for over 24 years. Degree qualified, until bridging course.
Advising and helping people through their lives.
So be offended on fees mate, no one gives a s..t.

he won't have two bobs to rub together. guaranteed.

Dear potential customer, you seem to have a lot to say re your self assessed ability at investing. I am sure your knowledge is endless and you will have no problem dropping a crumb of you emense knowledge and advising me all you know about Host Plus Balanced option asset allocation.

what does mathematical statistics have to do with superannuation laws or interpretation for example? Why is there no value in that - or are you able to transfer all of your genius to multiple other skills and knowledge areas. A very special character indeed.

I don't think you will be able to work out much, if anything. If you do work out something, it won't be very good.

I can tell by your posts, you are useless. go harass somebody else troll turd

Appropriately named Bozo. Oh dear. I forgot to mention that I also have a computer science degree with a specific focus on rule based systems and I wrote the code that analysed the British Nationality Act back in the early 1990s and showed how it was logically inconsistent. Since then I have been involved in commercial rule based and AI systems that deal with legislation and much harder things. I think this may be above your pay grade and you actually missed the whole point - go back and read the post and you will see that a degree in maths/stats is indeed relevant to the proposition advanced there. Must go - I have to do some coding which will put you out of work.

Good of you to grace us with your post. Can I just clarify, are you referring to assumptions behind say Vanguard and others Ádviser Alpha theory of anywhere from 2-4% value add? If so, yes I don't see much credibility in that, looks too generalised for me, but on a client by client basis it can be done.

Dear "A potential customer" I feel so sorry for you. Are you ok? You've obviously had some type of poor experience or potential loss of some description and suffering some mental breakdown or self esteem issues. Probably some ill educated saleperson from Westpoint or Guns Plantations maybe? Perhaps that mathematics degree just couldn't compute that gut feeling you had or emotional decision you've made. As humans we tend to blame others and external factors rather than personal accountability. I suggest you look internally and when you do we're here for you. I hope you get the help you need my friend. Stay strong and positive.

Actually Adam I have really good experiences because I worked with Jim Simons at Renaissance Technologies many years ago doing some foundational statistical models for which I still get a royalty.

Add new comment