Latest Poll – Simple or Complex Advice?

11
Do you support the call to legally define 'personal financial advice' as either Simple or Complex?
  • Yes (57%)
  • No (30%)
  • Not sure (13%)

Our latest poll asks a simple question about a complex issue.

Can or should the relative complexity (and perceived risk) of personal financial advice provided to consumers inform the level of the qualifications required of the adviser delivering the advice and the nature of compliance which must be observed?

This question arises out of the release last week of a report from Rice Warner, commissioned by the FSC, which calls for personal financial advice to be re-defined as part of a broader agenda to open access to more affordable financial advice for more Australians (see: Launch of Radical Plan to Revamp Financial Advice).

As we’ve said, we’re asking you a very simple question – about simple and complex advice – but the issue itself is likely fraught with complexity.

Industry stakeholders are presently reflecting on the FSC’s proposition and while some have acknowledged it as a great conversation-starter to work towards a simpler advice mechanism for consumers, others remain unconvinced as to whether personal financial advice can be compartmentalised along the lines proposed (see also: Call to Level the Playing Field…).

What’s your view? Do you think that re-defining personal financial advice along the lines proposed in Rice Warner’s report is the way to go – that it will better service consumers and benefit the advice profession? Or do you think it will only create more uncertainty and even more complexity to the adviser/client narrative, even when its intention is the reverse?

It’s over to you. Click here to access the FSC/Rice Warner Future of Advice research report. Let us know what you think, and we’ll report back next week…



RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

11 COMMENTS

    • Because they don’t, for a wide variety of reasons too many to articulate here.
      The numbers as Jeremy Wright says speak for themselves. No pun intended but insurance is dying and needs a revival or all of us are in a lot of trouble.

      • Isn’t the purpose of developing a definition of “simple advice” to lower the regulatory burden on advisers and allow for advice of lower level of information? My question is why would someone choose this lower level of information over what they could learn from a website?

        I’m more than happy for you to articulate the variety of reasons.

  2. The advised retail Life Insurance Industry is in rapid decline due to the Regulators and Legal / Compliance teams inability to separate Insurance Advice from Investment advice, which has led to the ridiculous position of forced studies for risk specialists on topics they will never advise on.

    All the debate about this subject is irrelevant, as the facts speak for themselves.

    The LIF / FASEA debacle and a stubborn insistence on forcing advisers to do more compliance on simple advice, has led to the current position whereby now most Australians cannot afford advice.

    Thousands of very good advisers have left the Industry, with thousands more to go, for NIL benefit to anyone.

    This is an economic disaster and is so easy to fix, though to date, nothing has been done.

    So the cycle of decline continues.

Comments are closed.