FSC raises moral risk of too many self-licensed advisers

19 April 2021
| By Mike |
image
image
expand image

Intrafund advice would continue to have a role to play and dealer group licensees would continue to be a source of necessary capital adequacy under a series of discussion points and recommendations contained in a Financial Services Council (FSC) green paper on financial advice.

The FSC document also makes clear its belief that the Government’s Design and Distribution Obligations (DDOs) will add yet another layer to the regulatory burden already being carried by the advice industry which will need to be addressed.

Reflecting its membership base among licensees, the FSC green paper makes clear the organisation’s view that they will need to continue to play a role notwithstanding professionalism and the rise in self-licensing.

The green paper said, “the current legislative and policy direction of advice affirms a role for licensees within the advice industry as well as providing a mechanism by which to promote consistency”.

“The introduction of new reference checking, information sharing requirements and breach reporting requirements for licensees reflects the importance of their ongoing role,” it said. “It is unreasonable for ASIC, or the incoming single disciplinary body, to supervise and monitor individual advisers consistently and sufficiently to the extent AFSL-holders currently do.”

“Removing this role would make it near impossible to monitor and provide independent audits of an adviser to the single disciplinary body,” the green paper said.

“Premature proliferation of a sector of solely self-licensed financial advisers, without the option to sign onto a Group AFSL while being individually registered, could create a moral risk for consumers. This could occur if individual advisers exit the industry leaving consumers orphaned and unremediated for misconduct.”

The green paper argued that “this consideration should influence future changes to the licensing of financial advice.

One of the green paper’s key recommendations is that “intra-fund advice should be permitted under Simple Personal Advice and Complex Personal Advice.

It argues that intrafund advice should not be defined separately, and be provided mostly as Simple Personal Advice, or where specific product recommendations are made, as complex personal advice.

Read more about:

AUTHOR

 

Recommended for you

 

MARKET INSIGHTS

sub-bg sidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

Squeaky'21

My view is that after 2026 there will be quite a bit less than 10,000 'advisers' (investment advisers) and less than 100...

6 days 2 hours ago
Jason Warlond

Dugald makes a great point that not everyone's definition of green is the same and gives a good example. Funds have bee...

6 days 3 hours ago
Jasmin Jakupovic

How did they get the AFSL in the first place? Given the green light by ASIC. This is terrible example of ASIC's incompet...

1 week ago

AustralianSuper and Australian Retirement Trust have posted the financial results for the 2022–23 financial year for their combined 5.3 million members....

9 months 1 week ago

A $34 billion fund has come out on top with a 13.3 per cent return in the last 12 months, beating out mega funds like Australian Retirement Trust and Aware Super. ...

9 months ago

The verdict in the class action case against AMP Financial Planning has been delivered in the Federal Court by Justice Moshinsky....

9 months 1 week ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND