Jones wants to extend advice pathways beyond FASEA
The Federal Government has signalled its preparedness to consult with the financial planning sector move beyond the narrow pathways set by the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) regime.
The Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services, Stephen Jones gave the undertaking on consultation to today’s Financial Advice Association of Australia congress in Adelaide declaring that there needed to be “a shared standard of education, competency and ethical standards”.
He acknowledged that that stakeholders had told him that the current pathways needed more flexibility and that “the legacy of FASEA looms large”.
Jones said that the Government wanted the cooperation of the industry to develop the new approach “otherwise, the Government will simply have to cut through and set the approach and this may not be the outcome you want”.
The minister said it was time for pragmatic solutions.
The minister said it was time for pragmatic solutions.
Yeah right!
How about you stick to getting the recommendations from QAR through parliament before you go trying to change any other requirements…
FARSEA confirms everything wrong with Govt Bureaucratic bodies own interpretation and implementation of laws.
Increased Education and Code of Ethics, Right policy, 15 to 20 years too late.
Obscenely disgusting implementation for both the Education & Code of Ethics.
Neither were done with any intent to work in the real world.
Or was it the fact the Frydenberg wanted to Kill Advisers and set the underlying approach ?
FARSEA, ASIC & AFCA are all as bad as each other at implementing laws and killing Advisers.
What does this even mean? shared with who? what pathways need more flexibility?
He’s shown again he just doesn’t understand the problems facing the industry and Australian’s who seek advice. This quote (not included in this article) encapsulates it:
“If the answer to that was everyone seeing their neighbourhood financial adviser then I would have done that but it isn’t because there are only 16,000 of them and they have a business model that is not appropriate to answering that need”.
The advice business model and cost is not the problem, it’s a sympton of the regulations. The problem is the overburdening regulatory environment that requires significant valueless work to be done to provide clients with advice (and the punitive approach to minor administrative errors that have no client impact).
If his best idea is to provide a lower educational bar and set of rules only to those giving advice for a super fund he should be stood down from his position immediately.
5 million people seeking advice is only 312 clients for each adviser, if the regs and compliance were actually efficient and workable. Pretty easy to fulfil. Imagine if the government focused on building the pool of qualified advisers in conjunction with rectifying the compliance regime? Actual advice by independent (of the product they are advising) financial advisers for, what should be, a much lower cost than it currently stands. Advisers can adapt their business models if the environment allows them to do so.
312 clients…when do you sleep?
Think about how much time is wasted on pointless compliance work that adds zero value to clients. I’m fairly sure your average accountant would see more than 312 clients per year.
If advisers were treated as professionals, expected to give accurate advice in their client’s best interest but not made to write 80 page diatribes justifying it the time to see a client would be massively reduced.
This industry is so absurdly over regulated. What other industries are dictated to regarding how they charge clients, how much is justifiable, how it must be renewed each year?
If the government abolished SOA’s, as recommended by QAR, and ASIC don’t force advisers to do all the same work in an ‘Advice Record’ (I. e. Operate like every other profession), we could easily service 312 clients. It’s less than 8 clients per week.
Not to mention that a lot of the advice would be fairly simple stuff so I would expect more than 312 could be seen if necessary. Like any industry you would likely have different business models too, so some advisers may focus on the simple (quick) advice and then refer the more complex stuff to a specialist (bit like the medical industry). How many times have you picked up a fact find and already know the advice you will be giving? The whole process of SOA’s etc is cumbersome, expensive and people generally don’t like it. At least, in this circumstance, the adviser is not tied to one product (biased super fund advice) either.
We have 500 clients on service agreements, do 10 reviews like clockwork every week , would love to have “only” 312
Easy – labour govt use industry fund and Robo advice. Anything technical that helps save tax does not help the government. Ok really it does as ppl don’t rely on age pension but the govt only look short term. Australia’s long term future doesn’t matter to them.
Do you Morons not realise you have over 50% of advisers that have left the industry because of poor performance of government…
So another 50% to go?
Scams now are over $2billion a year.. no advisors to help..
Good luck
“He acknowledged that that stakeholders had told him that the current pathways needed more flexibility and that “the legacy of FASEA looms large”
Stakeholders = Industry Super and everyone that is not an actual qualified adviser.
Jones said that the Government wanted the cooperation of the industry to develop the new approach “otherwise, the Government will simply have to cut through and set the approach and this may not be the outcome you want”. What MP Jones means is – the Govt. has an agenda to look after Industry Super Funds and that is our focus. The current mess that exists in providing Financial Advice is not our focus, nor will it ever be, as the Labor Party and our supporters do not benefit 1 iota from helping improve Financial Advisers deliver advice.
The slow march to product providers (industry super funds) having a totally different set of rules for financial advice continues. Meanwhile gullible adviser groups like the AIOFP act like a turkey looking forward to Christmas.
“Stakeholders”: (read) Union mates super funds
There must be an allowance for exceptions. I have the best one right now. This person would run circles around most advisers and was one – opting to go into senior compliance roles. Law degree and cfp not enough? Why? I employed someone with a degree in FP and accounting – he had experience too – absolutely hopeless. Why can he get in and this other guy not? Your rules are too inflexible. Maybe after losing appx half the advisers your true goal is too see this profession collapse and pretend you didn’t know what you were doing. The problem is and has been for many years – you are too arrogant to listen. No better than those leading the country when that Luna Park fire happened. The WIFM is strong and you just don’t care