Has the Govt created an advice structural imbalance?

At a time when the number of retired Australians is about to increase, the exodus of financial advisers from the market will impose immense structural limitations on advice resources.

That is one of the key points made in a CPA Australia submission to the Retirement Income Review panel which stated there is a significant risk that Australians who need professional advice most, may miss out.

The submission has pointed to the complexity of the regulatory environment confronting retirees.

Related News:

“The fact that one needs to transfer their superannuation to a new product in order to commence an income stream is fraught with uncertainty and paperwork. The most basic retirement income product, the account-based pension, still requires a formal rollover and application process before it can commence, where retirees would most likely prefer a simple switch to turn it on from their existing account,” it said.

“The Age Pension means testing process is no simpler. Deeming, lifetime incomes and exemptions conspire to make it almost impossible for retirees to know how their affairs should be set up when they decide that they wish to retire.”

“We are not aware of any evidence that matters are improving,” the CPA Australia submission said.

“At a time when the number of retired Australians is about to increase, this will impose immense structural limitations on advice resources, meaning that Australians who need professional financial advice most may miss out.”




Recommended for you

Author

Comments

Comments

Industry Funds and product providers - charge fees to provide Intra Fund Advice (which is not Personal Advice) to most members and no need to provide service. They recommend, you guessed it, the in house product. BID - no need for that it seems.
Professional Independently owned Advice practice - well, FOFA, no Commissions, FASEA, Opt-in, FDS,, SOA's ROA's, BID, ethics etc.

Looks like we should all just go and be salaried advisers for the industry funds. I wonder how long until some union official gets caught for syphoning super funds out of infrastructure projects with the superfund's knowledge. They'll probably blame the independent advisers for it somehow

Not salaried advisers, salaried "client service" staff. Licensed advisers are subject to BID and FASEA regardless of their employer. But unlicensed client service staff at union funds can give personal financial advice via the "general advice" loophole, without needing to comply with the FASEA Code of Ethics or act in clients best interests. They don't even need to bother with all that pesky training and CPD.

Seems to be the situation. Some seem consumed on the argument on becoming a "profession" with ever increasing regulation to the point that many clients will no longer receive or be able to afford advice ($3K pa seems to be the minimum). While this discussion and transition is unfolding, Industry Super is simply getting huge amounts of FUM under General Product "Advice" all paid for by members/clients under Intra Fund "Advice" Fees - which are not for "Advice" (and other such as AMP seem to be moving in the same direction).
The term "Advice" is used by all but it is only a qualified "Financial Adviser" that has all the regulation - and in the mean time the FUM is rolling on in - and the "Financial Advisers" are out of this as they it seems are "conflicted".
But it does seem to be OK to be an employed Adviser thereby eliminating all conflicts if said Adviser only recommends the in-house product. Very convenient if you are a product manufacturer wanting to sell lots of product?

If the government does not pass the FASEA exam deadline, this will speed up the early retirement for hundreds of experienced advisors.

Does anyone have any idea when they will finally extend the date? I know it has to get through the senate but is it locked in for a certain date.

The Lawyers of the Royal Commission plus the Federal Government have now effectively rendered Financial Advice affordable only to the wealthy. They have forced Financial Advice to become so complex and costly because to comply with all the regulations and to protect themselves from the malicious scrutiny of ASIC, APRA, Compliance people, and vexatious, litigious Lawyers, Financial Advisers must now produce voluminous, costly, time consuming 50 page BCM's i.e. "Butt Covering Memo's" (AKA SoA's) for simple advice just to legally protect themselves, when the reality is much scoped advice could be delivered effectively via something much simpler. As has been occurring already, now watch how many more highly knowledgeable experienced advisers aged 45+ who don't have a "Relevant Degree" head for the exits by end 2025.

Dont blame the RC and the Government for this regulatory regime. Just about every issue of MoneyManagement has some financial adviser being reported as being up to no good. The financial advice industry let the state of their reputation and responsibilities fall into decay and disrepute.

The problems reported in Money Management over the years could have quite easily been avoided by competent regulators at the time (eg Storm) and by targeted regulations focused on the minority of wrongdoers.

Instead, the government and regulators have launched a broad based persecution campaign against the whole industry, most of whom provide a valuable service to clients and have never done anything wrong. It is a colossal failure in responsible government, that will end up harming the majority of consumers.

There's truth in what you have said.

who set the bar so low on education requirements for entry into the industry?

answer: the big institutions and ASIC together so don't blame financial planners

criminals will steal if they are allowed to, it's the job of the regulator to set a high bar to entry into industries of great public interest

btw, for clarification could you please state your qualifications in financial planning

So it is ok if someone else does it? Carte blanche got the financial advice industry et al in front of a Royal Commission.

Gee Hedware, you're back. Has Choice extended your trolling contract past the initial 12 months?

Nah - wouldn't pay more. Has Goulburn extended your time?

hi hedware,

please state your financial planning qualifications for all to see, I have a masters degree in financial planning and have passed the fasea exam. as such, i am appropriately qualified to comment on financial planning and related matters affecting the industry.

please state your formal qualifications and why you are fit to comment on the industry and the profession.

otherwise, kindly leave this forum.

thank you,

bobby

Add new comment