Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement
Advertisement

Advisers Reject Call For Random ASIC Audits

Do you support the call for ASIC to conduct random audits of 20 per cent of life insurance advisers over a three-year period?

  • No (67%)
  • Yes (28%)
  • Not sure (4%)

The majority of advisers have indicated they don’t support the call for ASIC to conduct random audits of Australian risk advice businesses.

The call to audit 20 per cent of life insurance advisers over a three-year period was made as part of the final recommendations made by the Parliamentary Joint Committee charged with investigating Australia’s life insurance sector (see: PJC Recommends Compliance Audits For Risk Advisers).

While 63 per cent have rejected this call, around a third of those taking our poll (31 per cent) have indicated their support, while 6 per cent aren’t sure.

Given the general feedback we’ve received on this poll and elsewhere, our sense is that most risk-focused advisers would be okay to be subjected to a random ASIC audit because they’re already subject to regular audits from their licensee. We’re thinking that a proportion of those voting against such a move have taken this position mostly due to regulatory and other industry events in recent years in which they believe advisers have been unfairly targeted.

What’s your view? If you don’t support the call for random ASIC audits of risk advice businesses, what’s your main reason for taking this position? Equally, if you’re one of the healthy minority who support the random audit call, what are your reasons?

Our poll remains open for another week if you haven’t yet had your say…

 

  • Annon

    Who would pay for this pointless audit? As the article states, we already pay a ridiculous amount of $ to our licensees to audit us.

    If ASIC are going to do audits and charge us then dealer groups are truly redundant.

    • Squeaky_1

      Haha! TRUE, on all points Annon (that’s a Greek name, isn’t it? :-)). This ridiculous money paid to dealerships as adviser fees is the biggest ongoing and enduring RORT I’ve ever seen. Would be nice if dealer actually did something like fought effectively for no 2yr claw-back or reducing commissions. Hard for them when owned by life companies most times and those bosses truly want to rid the industry of advisers to make way fro RoboAdvice. talk about a rock and a hard place!
      .
      Dealers on the whole are self enriching blood suckers (with a very few exceptions) and should be deleted from the industry in favour of self licencing. Then however ASIC would have to work for it’s pay (great concept!) with more advisers to administer. It would work better for clients (reduced costs, less red tape for advisers) but why would ASIC care about that, based on it’s past and current behaviour?!

  • Ken

    With less than 3% of complaints with FOZ that relate to life insurance what is the real agenda for this ??
    More pressure to have advisers retire or sell up sick of the constant pressures being applied on their time and finances
    And being ridiculed to post on their Website any adverse findings
    That should probably kill off their business regardless of all the good and beneficial things they may have done over the last 20 or 30 years
    Very sad

    • Squeaky_1

      True and great words Ken. What can we do mate? Most all has been said & tried. Best just prepare our client base for sale. Tidy up all the loose ends therein and contract Prenderville or Wrightson to find a buyer. Then start dreaming and planning about the next 20-30 hopefully healthy years travelling the world with our significant other and buying our dream car. About all we can do. The life execs have won this one, we’re out mate.
      .
      Bloody ASIC, pure idiocy we are seeing, as if ‘life’ isn’t hard enough right now. Going off half-cocked, they don’t have a clue or any real insight to what is happening. I dare say they have not even spoken with a REAL representative sample of life advisers for feedback. If they had they would be behaving differently, properly, constructively instead of this knee-jerk and destructive manner.