FPA says ASIC should not baulk at asset-based fees

ASIC/financial-planning-association/FOFA/australian-securities-and-investments-commission/association-of-financial-advisers/FPA/mercer/chief-executive/investments-commission/financial-advice/money-management/

27 March 2012
| By Staff |
image
image image
expand image

Financial Planning Association (FPA) chief executive Mark Rantall has made clear he does not believe asset-based fees should become an issue in the Australian Securities and Investments Commission's (ASIC) consideration of class order relief from opt-in.

Participating in a Money Management roundtable in the direct aftermath of the passage of the Future of Financial Advice (FOFA) bills, Rantall said the FPA would argue very strongly that an asset-based fee should not have anything to do with class order relief from opt-in.

"The intent of opt-in was to ensure consumers were not paying for advice they weren't receiving," he said.

"The discussion we've had with Government and regulators so far is that there is a requirement that if you're paying for advice you're receiving advice, and that is as far as you have to go to obviate opt-in.

"We won't be countenancing the removal of asset-based fees," Rantall said. "Asset-based fees are a charging mechanism and the product of a negotiation between the client and their professional financial planner."

Association of Financial Advisers chief executive Richard Klipin agreed with Rantall that asset-based fees ought to no longer be a part of the discussion around opt-in, but rather a part of the discussion between clients and their financial advisers.

"There are a range of ways that advisers and principals will run their business models, the main thing is disclosure," he said.

Mercer's Jo-Anne Bloch told the roundtable that she did not believe the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) would make an issue about asset-based fees, and that if the regulator had intended to do so it would have "forced the issue" before now.

Bloch said Mercer's clients had a choice - they could pay a fixed fee for an on-going service or pay an asset-based fee.

"I have to tell you that nine out of 10 choose an asset-based fee, and the difference is that an asset-based fee is disclosed, it is in their statement every year, it is in their annual review, whereas a commission never was, it was built into the management expense ratio, it was netted out of returns and it wasn't very transparent," she said.  

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

MARKET INSIGHTS

The succession dilemma is more than just a matter of commitments.This isn’t simply about younger vs. older advisers. It’...

1 month 3 weeks ago

Significant ethical issues there. If a relationship is in the process of breaking down then both parties are likely to b...

2 months 2 weeks ago

It's not licensees not putting them on, it's small businesses (that are licensed) that cannot afford to put them on. The...

2 months 3 weeks ago

ASIC has canceled the AFSL of Sydney-based asset consultant and research firm....

3 weeks 3 days ago

ASIC has banned a Melbourne-based financial adviser for eight years over false and misleading statements regarding clients’ superannuation investments....

1 week 5 days ago

ASIC has banned a Melbourne-based financial adviser who gave inappropriate advice to his clients including false and misleading Statements of Advice....

1 week 3 days ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND
moneymanagement logo