Majority of Advisers Reject Self-Funding ASIC Oversight

2
Do you agree that advisers should contribute to the cost of funding ASIC’s regulatory oversight of the financial advice sector, as long as the costs are equitable?
  • No (82%)
  • Yes (16%)
  • Not sure (2%)

Our latest poll results are in, but we’re not quite sure what to make of it.

This conversation revolves around whether advisers should fund the cost of ASIC’s oversight of their conduct and activities – as long as the cost is fair and reasonable. So far, almost three in four advisers (72%) want nothing to do with contributing to ASIC’s operating costs, which the Government requires the regulator to fund from the sector.

It’s been well documented that the cost of delivering personal financial advice has sky-rocketed over the last ten years as a direct result of an increased regulatory burden imposed on advisers and advice businesses. It should come as no surprise, then, that when ASIC’s 2020/21 funding levy estimates were released recently – projecting a significant increase in the levy for a reducing cohort of authorised representatives – the spike in the levy has been roundly criticised by the adviser associations (see: Adviser Associations Slam ASIC Funding Levy Increase…).

Depending on your perspective, it almost raises an eyebrow that around one in four advisers (23%) have answered yes to the question. Presumably, this group of voters supports the proposition on the condition – as stated in the question – that the cost is equitable.

This is one of those issues where we may have been better served by asking the question in a different way. Perhaps the question should have been more along the lines of whether the major banks and institutions that have exited or are intending to exit financial advice should pay their share of regulatory costs (as suggested by The Advisers Association – see: Call For Banks to Share ASIC Funding Levy Costs).

Our poll remains open for another week, and we welcome your vote and your thoughts.



RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

2 COMMENTS

  2. Every knee-jerk legislative reaction by the Gov’t (usually driven by institutional misconduct) has only caused serious harm to the Advisers doing the right thing and moreover fewer Australian’s able to access desperately needed financial planning advice for their and their families’ future financial security. To add ‘insult to stupidity’, the remaining good advisers have to pay ASIC thousands of dollars a year for the misconduct of others. The result of the Gov’t’s misfired legislation, which has caused Australians more harm than good, thanks to this mismanagement, we now have 10 to 12 thousand fewer advisers to police, so if ASIC were honest, their size and costs should go down proportionally. They have broken the industry through scatter-gun blast legislation and one of the most vibrant economies in the world has a basket-case of a financial system limping to its demise. After all this toxic damage, ASIC are now concerned about the affordability of advice – yet they have caused this huge problem by not listening to Advisers in the first place!

Comments are closed.