Accountants want advice restrictions removed
The Government needs to fix the uncertain regulatory environment which means chartered accountants are walking a tightrope when it comes to the delivery of financial advice, according to major accounting body, Chartered Accountants – ANZ.
But at the same time, CA-ANZ reiterated its opposition to the “experienced pathway” and said the Government should review the measure an announce a revised policy “that requires minimum education standards (as occurs in most other professions”.
In its pre-Budget submission filed with Treasury this week, CA-ANZ has called for “regulatory certainty for unlicensed accountants” arguing chartered accountants are “highly skilled and are ideally placed to meet the advice needs of many small businesses and individual taxpayers”.
“Under the current regulatory environment accountants who do not hold an Australian Financial Services License are being asked to walk a tight rope,” the submission said. “One wrong step and they fall into providing unlicensed advice and may be subject to substantial penalties.”
“It is unfair and inefficient for the regulatory environment to create such uncertainty and we ask the government to commence work on fixing this problem as soon as possible.”
The CA-ANZ submission has also pointed to the fact that the findings of the Quality of Advice Review had not been published and urged the Government to accept and implement any recommendations that lightened the regulatory burden as quickly as possible.
That’s fine accountants can give financial advice, they just need to do 6 years study, then once they’ve done that they can jump through the 500 hoops advisers continually have to jump through when the industry’s integrity is questioned again and again and again.
Hey and while they are at it, they can pay 20% of their company revenue to licence groups who do stuff all, thousands in ASIC levys each year to fund the mistakes of the banks, and also countless thousands in professional indemnity insurance costs.
That way they won’t feel hard done by 😉
Doesn’t the prohibition on providing advice without authority under an AFSL cover this? If you’re not a current adviser on the ASIC register don’t advise.
That’s their issue, they want different rules for accountants. Personally I agree with you that it is simple, be licensed or don’t give advice.
Accountants know the underlying mechanics of super and super funds. Further Accounting is the language of business, understand management and costing and business finance – ie NPV etc.
The licencee super specialists are usually qualified accountants. Accountants should not need to do additional study to provide financial advise . Accountants will not recomend investments or insurance as this is specialist knowledge.
Further accountants have to pass a post graduate year of study while they are working which highlights the application of the theory to real world situations.
No…inaccurate, and this is why accountants should not provide advice until they have the same knowledge and qualifications as required to be a financial adviser. I know some really highly educated and smart actuaries who would run rings around most accountants but would all make rubbish financial advisers. And don’t get me started on the legal profession providing financial advice…
‘Some’ accountants know some of the Super rules, rather than just the accounting for a SMSF, but a much smaller cohort know all the rules and all the strategies and even fewer document this advice to their clients. Doing a broad post grad year is hardly qualification to provide specific Super financial advice in isolation from other potential needs, and advocating to NOT do additional study when the Super rules literally change every year is both arrogant and ignorant of what good financial advice is.
Based on your reasoning, lets allow Pharmacists the ability to provide medical advice that a GP would.
Most accountants operate unlicensed when it comes to financial advice anyway, don’t they? I mean, there are a lot of people out there who seemingly have a relationship with an accountant (unlicensed for financial advice) and all by coincidence they have a SMSF setup.
Accountants have extreme difficulty knowing where the boundaries are regardless of where they sit! I have no question about their ethics but their professionalism when it comes to staying within (or near) legislated boundaries is shocking.
Are these the same accountants who promoted failed agri business schemes in the noughties? The same ones, who some of their membership believe anyone with a superannuation balance and a heartbeat should have a SMSF? The same ones whose idea of putting advice in writing equals tax returns and P/L?
Haha mango lots anyone?
Accountants… jog on.
Haha!
That would be a yes…
But how else do they afford the nice 4×4, overseas holidays and Bitcoin portfolio!