FSC canvasses capital requirements for advice licensees

financial services council FSC Financial Services financial advisers financial planners CSLR compensation scheme of last resort sector specific funding professional indemnity pi

14 February 2020
| By Mike |
image
image
expand image

Other sectors of the financial services industry should not be made to fund client losses generated by financial advisers under a compensation scheme of last resort (CSLR), according to the Financial Services Council (FSC).

In a submission to the Treasury on the proposed scheme, the FSC said it supported a targeted ‘mid-coverage’ scheme which included the sectors which historically had unpaid determination – “namely financial advice, investments and credit”.

“The targeted CSLR should be funded solely by the sector responsible for the unpaid determinations via Sector Specific Funding. Sector Specific Funding should take into account the historical experience of unpaid determinations (that is, whether or not and if so the extent of, historical unpaid determinations in that sector) to identify appropriate funding requirements for each sector, until a fulsome risk-based funding approach can be implemented in the CSLR,” the FSC submission said.

It argued that sector specific funding should be deep enough to meet estimated costs including expected variability across different periods, but not require cross-subsidisation from other financial services sector.

The submission said that to facilitate sector specific funding and to ensure that the CSLR was sustainable it was essential that outstanding regulatory gaps in the advice licensing regime were addressed, particularly relating to professional indemnity (PI) insurance and capital requirements.

The submission said the FSC believed there needed to be greater oversight of PI insurance requirements by ASIC and the introduction of appropriate capital requirements for advice licensees, noting that the current cash needs requirements set out by ASIC only required sufficient cash to meet 12 weeks of liabilities.

“This latter measure of introducing appropriate capital requirements need not result in prudential supervision. Rather it can simply require minimum cash or liquid capital requirements as part of licence conditions. These assets are then available to meet any consumer claims. This can be built up over time to streamline the introduction of such requirements,” it said.

Read more about:

AUTHOR

 

Recommended for you

 

MARKET INSIGHTS

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

Rob

Hello, nice article. So, pave will be sold on the ASX?...

7 hours 34 minutes ago
JOHN GILLIES

GREAT EXAMPLE OF A GOVT DEPT SHIRKING IT'S RESPONSIBILITIES. THEY WERE GETTING A BIT TOO MUCH WORK.NONE OF THE REST OF U...

13 hours 34 minutes ago
JOHN GILLIES

I really don't know what makes these guy's tick to think they can get away with it, it's the height of stupidity! They c...

2 days 12 hours ago

Underestimating the cost of insurance by almost $75,000 in a Statement of Advice is among multiple reasons that a relevant provider has faced action from the FSCP. ...

4 weeks 1 day ago

A former financial adviser has been banned by ASIC from providing financial services for inappropriate advice, among multiple breaches....

1 week ago

Treasurer Jim Chalmers has handed down his third budget, outlining the government’s macroeconomic forecasts and changes to superannuation....

2 weeks 1 day ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND