Frydenberg Outlines Advice Reform Priorities

7

Further refinements to the Future of Financial Advice (FoFA) regime, along with a model for improving adviser competency, are being sought by the Government, Assistant Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, has confirmed.

Assistant Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg
Assistant Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg

Addressing the 2015 Annual Stockbrokers Conference in Sydney last week, Mr Frydenberg said while he was not in a position to announce the proposed FoFA refinements, the Government is seeking to make “time-critical” changes by 1 July 2015.

“We do not intend to re-litigate past debates on these laws. However, we are working on a bipartisan basis to progress a handful of technical refinements, which will ensure FoFA operates as intended,” Mr Frydenberg said.

In addition, the Assistant Treasurer said that there was “a clear consensus for reform” across adviser competency and education standards.

“In April, I chaired a roundtable that included the Stockbrokers Association and other peak industry bodies, consumer groups, respected academics, and the chairman of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, Greg Medcraft.

I think everyone recognises that now is the time to act

“All participants agreed that we need to lift industry standards, and I believe they did so because we all understand the important role that this industry plays in Australia,” he said.

Mr Frydenberg noted there appeared to be widespread industry support for many elements of the model, as well as the need for a sensible transition, strong governance, sustainable funding and enduring reform.

“We believe this is an important piece of reform, and as such we want to take the necessary time to consult and consider it very carefully.

“However, pleasingly, I think everyone recognises that now is the time to act. For this reason, we are moving swiftly to settle our policy position and provide the industry with a clear roadmap as soon as possible,” Mr Frydenberg said.

The Government will continue to consult on changes to adviser standards until the end of June 2015.



7 COMMENTS

  1. Well, all these proposals affecting our livelihood are being mooted by Assistand Treasurer, Mr Frydenberg it seems.

    How beneficial they will be, or otherwise, in the long term we’ll discover. But I can’t help wondering about the judgement reflected by Mr Frydenberg and other politicians who watch which way the wind is blowing before they commence their rhetoric. These same political leaders now are vocal in their support for same-sex marriage equality. Questionable judgement surely.

  2. Can’t believe I voted for the LNP thinking they were for small business…………. I hope they get all that’s coming to them.

  3. Again we see employees and bureaucrats changing the goal posts to control those who are doing the job these people are not qualified to do.

    Planners and Risk Advisers are subject to competency laws and regulations set by people who will never be held accountable by the same laws.

    Planners and Advisers carry all the risk, all the overheads and all the education and keep having the goal posts moved on them to comply for dong exactly the same job.

    This serves to do is nothing with with professionalism, unless you want to count a couple of letters behind your name if that’s important.

    What it does serve to do, is top those advisers form doing their job, being out in the field actually spending time talking to clients and providing the protection they all need.

    Instead of finding ways in which to make life tougher on advisers, why not find out how to get them more time out in front of the Australian public for 90% of their working day, instead of 90% head down doing paperwork.

    More education doesn’t make people smarter. Many well educated university graduates remain unemployed. Ticking more boxes will never prevent fraud. But getting more applications through the door and simplifying the process will ensure more income/tax and a greater number of people being given the correct level of insurance they need as well as professional advice.

    Stop boxing people in and let them be free to do their job. If you don’t like the way it’s being done Josh Frydenberg, then why don’t you and your bipartisan group of public servants get a real job like advisers have and put your backside on the line for what you believe in.

    Or isn’t the responsibility something you can handle yourself.

    • Pretty good comment, Nobby. Yes, it’s much like that alright. More back-office ‘stuff’, less time in front of prospects. How will this help the under-insurance issue facing our country?

      • A good example is Fee Disclosure Statements. I dont understand why an Adviser is required to send out a FDS, when the exact same information is (or can be) provided on a Super Fund statement. A lot of funds already do this, but an Adviser is still required to declare the fees paid to them by issuing a FDS. If the super fund statement simply highlights fees paid to an Adviser for their services, and makes a statement to contact the Adviser should you need to query them, then that should be enough. The time and cost savings would be enormous, by being able to utilise product manufacturers systems and resources to achieve a sort of “economies of scale” in relation to disclosing fees.

  4. I cannot think of a more regimented industry when it comes to ongoing Pd and yet as soon as we start to get a handle on the requirements we get the rules changed again
    In 37!years I have never been sued or harshly questioned by my clients never been questioned about the commission I received Yet some one with a box full of figures that are questionable to say the least seem to have suddenly come up with all the answers They need to start again and get the right answers and way forward from those that do it and know what is needed
    Or is that below them to ask ?

  5. I have worked as a financial planner for over 9 years. Where I had been employed was keen on telling us existing financial planners that despite our experience we were worth nothing and we were paid significantly less as we did not have a degree. These new financial planners made considerable errors and lost clients hundreds of thousands of dollars because of their know it all attitude. Then financial planners like me are left to pick up the pieces. Having excellent compliance and no issues with ASIC and extensive experience you would think it should be very easy to get employment. I have applied for at least 40 roles and not even making interview due to not holding a degree. I am told constantly by employers that this is the law. The constant misinformation to discriminate against existing financial planners. It would be appreciated if any of you have any guidance what to do in this matter

Comments are closed.