Advisers Agree on Impact of Declining Risk Specialist Numbers

2
Declining numbers of risk advisers will have a significant and adverse impact on the level of Australia's social security burden.
  • Agree (92%)
  • Disagree (6%)
  • Not sure (2%)

In a very lop-sided poll result, there’s an almost universal view among advisers that fewer risk-focussed advisers will ultimately place a greater burden on the Australian taxpayer to sustain more Australians needing to rely on the public purse.

As we go to print, a huge 92% of those taking our poll can project a link between declining risk specialist adviser numbers and more strain on the Government’s future social welfare commitments (see: Lower Adviser Numbers Compound Taxpayer Burden).

To the extent that increasing reliance on social security hand-outs is or will become a reality for more Australians, this is an example of unintended consequences cascading their way from the implementation of well-intended regulatory reforms to the eventual impact of those reforms on the Australian community.

The rare win for advisers this week, which saw the Government placing a cap on the ASIC funding levy for advisers, represents one small tick in the box of reducing the cost of delivering advice – or at least not increasing it any further (see: Win for Advisers…).

But there’s much more the Government may want to consider – both in terms of the cost of delivering financial advice to Australians and the ability for advisers to be fairly remunerated for the value they deliver their clients – if it is to avoid what many advisers believe will be a needless blow-out in the nation’s social security accounts caused by the decline in consumer access to specialist life insurance advice.

Our poll remains open for another week and we welcome your views…



RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

2 COMMENTS

  1. As we go to print, a huge 92% of those taking our poll can project the link between declining risk specialist adviser numbers and more strain on the Government’s future social welfare commitments

    I didn’t know risk advisers were also economists. Surely this would be a suitable accreditation for FASEA?

  2. Forcing risk advisers to do the exact same ‘ethics exam’ as stock brokers, investment advisers and accountants is a farce and an insult. All of those occupations are very different disciplines yet are tarred with the same brush by these bought-and-paid-for career bureaucrats who have never sat with a client at the coal face or run a business. They should be ashamed of themselves at FARCE-IA.

    The life industry is on its knees with a collapse of new business inflows and STILL there is no sign of a seperate and specialised risk qualification or exam for riskies. May as well have police required to have the same qualifications as doctors for all the sense it makes. Just wait to see what happens – the pollies will blame someone else, probably the advisers again when it all turns terminal for the industry.

Comments are closed.