Fixed-term fees not a way to evade ongoing fee consent

Bryan-Ashenden/BT/fees/

29 July 2021
| By Chris Dastoor |
image
image image
expand image

Advisers should be wary of using fixed-term arrangements to avoid ongoing fee consent renewals, as the former will likely end up creating the same amount of work, if not breaching the code of ethics.

Bryan Ashenden, BT head of financial literacy and advocacy, said some advisers talked about the requirements being less under a fixed-term arrangement than they were under the new ongoing fee arrangements.

“Technically, that’s correct but I’d also ask the question whether they are actually saving anything,” Ashenden said.

“If you have a fixed-term arrangement in place and you want to renew it when you start that process about entering another fixed-term agreement… it sounds like you’re going through the same process that you would under the new ongoing fee arrangements and annual consent requirements anyway.

Ashenden said a fixed-term arrangement was typically one that did not go beyond 12 months but could go longer.

“That could be up to in theory 365 days or a period of up to 12 months, just as long as it doesn’t exceed it,” Ashenden said.

“What’s important to remember here is under definition of the law, you can’t have a fixed-term arrangement that goes for two years that gets you out of annual consent or in any way around these requirements.

“A fixed-term contract for two years is technically a fixed-term contract, because it has a start date and end date. But in terms of annual consent requirements, as soon as it goes for more than 12 months, it will [be counted] as an ongoing fee arrangement and the annual consent requirements come into play.

“There will be questions for you as an adviser whether you want arrangements to be an ongoing basis or whether you prefer the fixed-term approach, you may even have a hybrid.”

Ashenden said this came back to Standard 1 of the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) code of ethics.

Standard 1 states: “You must act in accordance with all applicable laws, including this code, and not try to avoid or circumvent their intent”.

“What was the intent of the law and are we taking steps to try to get around that intent,” Ashenden said.

“Because just changing your arrangement [means] you have to ask the question: am I breaching the code in that regard?”

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

MARKET INSIGHTS

The succession dilemma is more than just a matter of commitments.This isn’t simply about younger vs. older advisers. It’...

1 week 2 days ago

Significant ethical issues there. If a relationship is in the process of breaking down then both parties are likely to b...

1 month ago

It's not licensees not putting them on, it's small businesses (that are licensed) that cannot afford to put them on. The...

1 month 1 week ago

AMP has settled on two court proceedings: one class action which affected superannuation members and a second regarding insurer policies. ...

2 days 15 hours ago

ASIC has released the results of the latest adviser exam, with August’s pass mark improving on the sitting from a year ago. ...

1 week 5 days ago

The inquiry into the collapse of Dixon Advisory and broader wealth management companies by the Senate economics references committee will not be re-adopted. ...

2 weeks 5 days ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND
Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
moneymanagement logo