Survey says Govt's $11 opt-in cost a fallacy
The Assistant Treasurer, Bill Shorten, may have accepted $11 as the likely average cost to planners of implementing the Government's proposed two-year opt-in arrangements, but a significant majority of planners believe it will cost $100 or more.
That is the bottom line of a survey conducted by Money Management almost immediately following Shorten's release of the first draft of his Future of Financial Advice legislation last week.
The $11 a week figure was the result of research conducted by actuarial consultancy Rice Warner, and the company's principal Michael Rice has subsequently signalled it will be issuing a submission to further explain how the firm arrived at the figure.
Treasury officials earlier in the year indicated to a Senate Committee they had seen industry research suggesting opt-in would cost around $100 per client.
Money Management last week pointed to the Government's acceptance of the Rice Warner $11 assessment, and asked what they believed it would cost.
The survey found that 89 per cent of respondents believed it would cost more than $50 per client, while 66 per cent of respondents believed opt-in would cost at least $100 per client, with a further 5 per cent of respondents believing it would cost $75 per client.
Only 8 per cent of respondents to the survey agreed with the Rice Warner figure of $11 per client.
Full results of the survey are published in this week's edition of Money Management.
AUTHOR
Mike Taylor
Recommended for you
Two commentators have shared why cultural alignment can be the biggest deal breaker when it comes to advice M&A and how to ensure a successful fit.
With an abundance of private market options coming to market, due diligence becomes increasingly important as advisers separate the wheat from the chaff, adviser Charlie Viola has said.
The Treasury has launched a consultation into how the $47 million special levy for the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort will be funded.
With the final tally for FY25 now confirmed, how many advisers left during the financial year and how does it compare to the previous year?
