Innovative presentations needed for SoAs
The future of the Statement of Advice (SoA) will be less about the compliance requirements and more about the document’s presentation to clients, according to Fourth Line.
The risk management firm said SoAs were a necessary part of the personal advice process but that advisers needed to be “brave and innovative” when it came to presenting the document to clients.
By doing so in a clear and concise manner, this would help the client to make an informed decision about the advice they receive.
The firm said: “Astute advisers know the future of the SoA will be less about highlighting compliance and regulatory requirements and more about the method, style and technology used to communicate the information in an easy-to-understand manner.
“This will increasingly be the case as technology permits the quality and appropriateness of the advice (relative to prevailing regulations and legislation) to be assessed as the SoA is created, rather than waiting until after the fact.
“The SoA is an important and necessary part of this process – it doesn’t mean you have to bore your clients to death with it. It means you need to make the process engaging so the information is heard, understood, and retained by the client.”
There had previously been debate around whether advisers needed a full SoA or could do a Letter of Advice and the matter was being considered in the Quality of Advice Review.
AUTHOR
Laura Dew
Recommended for you
ASIC has issued infringement notices to two AFSLs over financial advisers providing personal advice while they were unregistered.
Australian retirees could increase their projected annual incomes by as much as 51 per cent through comprehensive financial advice, according to a Vanguard study, but cost continues to be an issue.
AMP has announced a senior appointment to its North leadership team, reinforcing the firm’s commitment to the advice industry.
Despite the financial adviser exam being rooted in ethics, two professional year advisers believe the lack of support and transparency from the regulator around the exam is unethical.
