Planning clients will pay warns FPA

Financial planning consumers will be the ultimate victims of any increased costs flowing from the introduction of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) and the imposition of increased monetary claim limits, according to the Financial Planning Association (FPA).

Responding to the Treasury discussion paper around transitioning to the new one-stop-shop external dispute resolution (EDR) body, the FPA said it was concerned that increasing the monetary limits would increase the potential liability of financial service providers (FSPs) which would flow onto increased costs for advisers.

“Given that determinations can’t be appealed by the FSP, any limit increases should be incremental to allow the industry time to adjust,” it said.

Related News:

The FPA said increasing limits would increase professional indemnity (PI) insurance premiums at a time when adviser costs were sharply increasing.

“Further increases will be acutely felt and will be passed onto consumers or, more likely, absorbed by business at an already challenging time,” the submission said.

The FPA said it was concerned about the effect that increasing limits would have on professional indemnity insurance and that increased premiums would be passed onto advisers at a time when a large number of additional costs of regulation, each substantial, were being, or proposed to be, imposed on advisers.

The FPA then outlined those increased costs citing:

· ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery model – approximately $4,000 to $5,000 per adviser in 2018 for small licensees;

· ASIC fee-for-service costs – currently unknown; significant increases previously proposed;

· Funding the new Financial Advice Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) – unknown;

· Financial advice registration exam – unknown;

· Adviser Code Monitoring Scheme – unknown;

· Compensation Scheme of Last Resort – unknown;

· Tax Practitioners Board (TPB) – $400 per business plus $400 per adviser;

· ASIC Financial Adviser Register – currently $0 to $46 per adviser; and

· Cost of meeting new education requirements – varies depending on current qualifications.

“It seems likely that industry will need to absorb at least substantial part of these costs, which given the scale of increases will make running a business particularly challenging. This challenge is especially large for small providers,” the FPA said


Related Content

Looking to life beyond the Royal Commission

It is only a few short months ago that the managing director of ClearView, Simon Swanson nominated the removal of commission payments to life/risk adv...Read more

FPA acknowledges code-monitoring status is challenging

The Financial Planning Association (FPA) is poring over the Australian Securities and Investments Commission’s (ASIC’s) consultation paper on fina...Read more

Has the Government dropped the legacy product ball?

Any Royal Commission recommendations for the removal of grandfathering must be accompanied by an obligation on the Federal Government to address the t...Read more




Can the FPA please explain how it come to this cost: 'ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery model – approximately $4,000 to $5,000 per adviser in 2018 for small licensees'. Where has ASIC/Treasury published that this amount will apply?

Our firm was set to reduce implementation fees by one third from Jan 1, but that decision has now been put on ice. So these decisions do have very real consequences for consumers. I hope it was all worth it.

I suppose if you live in Canberra you assume money grows on trees? Let the politicians, bureaucrats and lawyers have their way and the outcome is the need for a money tree.

Well done to the FPA.

So currently we have the Super Complaints Tribunal and FOS to handle consumer complaints (vast majority of which are about the providers not advisers) which are funded by the super funds, insurers and banks.

Is it my understanding that these will be replaced by an adviser funded AFCA so that advisers will have to foot the bill for the unconscionable conduct of the 3 parties mentioned above?

I wonder if this was envisioned by the FSC?

Add new comment