Advisers want QAR quick wins on fee consent
While the Financial Planning Association (FPA) are hoping the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services, Stephen Jones, will deliver some “quick wins” from the final recommendations of the Quality of Advice Review the Government has opted for more consultation.
While Jones last year was alluding to the possibility of extracting some “quick wins” he was yesterday more circumspect saying, instead, that the Government would now consult widely on the Review’s recommendations while encouraging stakeholders to make their views known.
On the available evidence, this means that the earliest the Government is likely to move on some of the more easily-adopted QAR recommendations will be in the context of the May Budget, but more likely towards the last quarter of the calendar year.
More difficult issues such as the future of the Life Insurance Framework (LIF), which the final report endorses retaining, are expected to be dealt with later.
FPA chief executive, Sarah Abood welcomed the Government’s release of the QAR final report and called on the Government to act quickly in circumstances where “the current regulatory framework is complex, hard to understand and costly to comply with”.
“Minister Jones has previously stated that he was looking for ‘quick wins’.,” Abood said in a formal response. “We believe that recommendations eight (simplifying ongoing fee consent), nine (removing overly prescriptive requirements on how advice must be presented to clients) and 13.7 (maintaining the ability for clients to choose how they pay for life insurance advice) are quick wins.”
“These recommendations are broadly supported across the sector and have the potential to quickly improve consumer outcomes. They will also enable financial advisers and planners to provide advice more quickly and lower the costs involved in doing so.”
Association of Financial Advisers (AFA) chief executive, Phil Anderson endorsed Abood’s sentiments stating that some quick wins, particularly around fee consent, would be very welcomed.
Anderson said that the final report generated by QAR chair, Michelle Levy aligned very closely to the proposals document she released last year and reflected the consultation processes which had taken place.
Insignia Financial chief executive, Renato Mota welcomed the final report and said his firm agreed with the assessment that high quality advice is not always comprehensive advice.
“Rather, it can also be advice that responds to the needs of consumes,” he said. “Consumers are often looking for advice on single and specific financial matters and the current regulatory framework makes it difficult for them to access this.”
Financial advisers responding to the public release of the final QAR report expressed some scepticism around the future role of general advice and intrafund advice, suggesting that it was opening the door to superannuation funds and the re-entry of the banks.
However, they all agreed that the devil would ultimately be in the detail.
I expect the disillusionment of the outcomes from the (lost) opportunity that Levy had to fix matters and the about-face we all knew would happen with Jones will now see further exits from quality advisers who have simply had enough and know they cannot trust anything that Government tell us…I personally know several great advisers about to pull the pin. What a travesty.
Maybe this was always the intent. Make advisers redundant and replace them with institutions such as AMP
AMP redundant as well. A shadow of there former selves. Think you mean Industry funds.?
On the available evidence, this means that the earliest the Government is likely to move on some of the more easily-adopted QAR recommendations will be in the context of the May Budget, but more likely towards the last quarter of the calendar year.
What the hell is his decision on education? Jones is kicking this down the road, out of his depth. And we will end up with a dogs breakfast just like we have now. Those 20% exhausted planners thinking of going will go.
Yeh another Govt review that will most likely end in more red tape costs and compliance. Is that 8 reviews in 12 years?
Geeez they add value don’t they :-/
Let’s get it all legislated asap. Consultations have been exhaustive and the final report doesn’t materially differ from the interim, let’s go.
All except the bit about allowing untrained, unlicensed, product company employees to give personal “advice”.
Absolutely typical of a Government review…
Liberals blindly accepted the devastating Hayne recommendations, but when there’s an opportunity to make some quick changes to help fix the problem, Labor want more consultation…
Didn’t they employ Michelle Levy to get the views from stakeholders?
We all just know the stakeholders they will be listening to will be the Union Funds and this will not only be a lost opportunity, but another devastating backward step for the “profession”. 🙁
The biggest point I saw in the summary i read was that super funds could now give limited advice with minimal evidence or paperwork. Seems to read like a green light for banks and industry funds to give advice without qualified advisers or evidence of their advice. Hello call centres masquerading as advisers. And it wont make a skerrick of difference to the profession. Is it good for consumers or not, time will tell. But I think we all know what happened last time product providers were entitled to give advice with limited controls.
And, thanks to the call-cenre Jocky’s who will be called ‘financial advisers’ the professional, degree qualified advisers, will all be tarred with the same brush when it all goes wrong…
…again!
“Can banks and super funds really provide ‘good’ advice?”
Well they didn’t last time, when they had authorised reps. Maybe it will be different this time when they don’t have follow any rules