FPA urges ASIC to act on fee comparability

Consumers need more rather than less information on fees and costs when it comes to selecting superannuation products and will be well-served by receiving the assistance of a financial planner, according to the Financial Planning Association (FPA).

The FPA used a submission responding to an Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) discussion paper on disclosing fees and costs in product disclosure statements (PDSs) to argue that it should not be assumed that consumers will be overwhelmed by too much information.

The FPA submission argued that much of the current problem encountered by both consumers and advisers was the inconsistent approach of financial product manufacturers.

Related News:

“… the biggest challenge of advisers at present is the inconsistent approach by which product providers are disclosing their fees which inhibits financial advisers’ ability to clearly compare costs of financial products,” it said.

The FPA submission noted that, for this reason, the ASIC consultation and review “is the right step to rectifying this problem”.

“However, it remains incumbent on ASIC to ensure product manufacturers always disclose fees and costs in a clear and consistent manner,” the submission said.

However, the FPA argued that it would be to assume that consumers needed cut-down information on superannuation such as a single illustrative account balance figure.

“The FPA believe overtime, specific changes such as banning of exit fees, increased financial literacy, and technological innovation that reduce barriers to searching and switching, are fundamental reasons why consumers may increasingly rely on disclosure data,” it said.

“The changes to disclosure of fees and costs should consider this future landscape of more engaged superannuation users. Hence, the FPA is concerned the use of a single figure $50,000 in a ‘Cost of Product’ template will not adequately represent future users of superannuation.”

“Therefore, despite concerns that additional information may clutter product disclosure statement, we believe additional comparative figures will play a vital role in driving product comparability and competition,” the FPA submission said.




Related Content

High cost of putting writing on the wall for ASIC

Outsider is prepared to bet that when the team at the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) were ticking off their 2018 unfinished b...Read more

Don’t incentivise planners via commission rebates says ISA

Government proposals to rebate grandfathered commissions to clients via product providers would represent a significant abrogation of one of the key r...Read more

Sydney former adviser banned for six years

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has banned a Sydney man, formerly an adviser at Kaz Capital, from providing financial serv...Read more

Author

Comments

Comments

Yes, and how the hidden industry super fund admin fees (due to reduce bip fee deals with compliant investment managers) are subsiding their inhouse advisers. lol

Given the FPA represents and acts primarily for companies like AMP, Bridges, MLC and CBA etc etc I wonder just how much will ASIC take on board their comments.

Sir Doug, Bridges isn't aligned to the FPA. Its aligned to the AFA.

Sir Doug, the FPA doesn't officially represent any of these companies as it only has individual members.

However the FPA does offer membership fee discounts to ARs of many of these large product companies. Discounts which aren't available to ARs of smaller groups and self licensed planners. This fuels the perception that FPA is still beholden to the big institutions. It's time for FPA to end the discounts and favourable treatment of ARs from the big institutions. It is inequitable, and undermines the FPA's credibility.

Add new comment