{"id":58185,"date":"2021-10-19T11:48:20","date_gmt":"2021-10-19T01:48:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/?p=58185"},"modified":"2024-10-30T08:44:17","modified_gmt":"2024-10-29T22:44:17","slug":"driving-down-cost-of-advice-your-say","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/2021\/10\/19\/driving-down-cost-of-advice-your-say\/","title":{"rendered":"Driving Down Cost of Advice &#8211; Your Say"},"content":{"rendered":"<div id=\"polls-265\" class=\"wp-polls\">\n\t\t<div class=\"pollHeader\"><strong>Compliance with the seven Safe Harbour steps is the single biggest driver of cost and the biggest obstacle to accessing affordable financial advice.<\/strong><\/div><div id=\"polls-265-ans\" class=\"wp-polls-ans\"><ul class=\"wp-polls-ul\">\n\t\t<li>Agree <small>(61%)<\/small><div class=\"pollbar\" style=\"width: 61%\" title=\"Agree (61% | 51 Votes)\"><\/div><\/li>\n\t\t<li>Disagree <small>(28%)<\/small><div class=\"pollbar\" style=\"width: 28%\" title=\"Disagree (28% | 23 Votes)\"><\/div><\/li>\n\t\t<li>Not sure <small>(11%)<\/small><div class=\"pollbar\" style=\"width: 11%\" title=\"Not sure (11% | 9 Votes)\"><\/div><\/li>\n\t\t<\/ul><div style=\"text-align: center\"><\/div><\/div>\n\t\t<input type=\"hidden\" id=\"poll_265_nonce\" name=\"wp-polls-nonce\" value=\"923fc89846\" \/>\n<\/div>\n\n<p>Our latest poll seeks your opinion about one of the key planks in the FSC&#8217;s blueprint for the future of financial advice, released last week (see: <a href=\"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/2021\/10\/12\/blueprint-for-a-simplified-regulatory-framework-launched\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Landmark White Paper Blueprint&#8230;<\/a>).<\/p>\n<p>The council&#8217;s <a href=\"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/files\/2021\/10\/211012-FSC-White-Paper-on-Financial-Advice.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">white paper<\/a> details 31 recommendations intended to:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Drive down the cost of advice<\/li>\n<li>Deliver significant time saving in the provision of advice<\/li>\n<li>Create meaningful productivity gains that would allow advisers to serve more clients<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The FSC references <a href=\"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/files\/2021\/10\/210831-KPMG-The-Cost-Profile-of-Australias-Financial-Advice-Industry_Final-Research.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">KPMG research findings <\/a>on which the white paper is based, that project the full implementation of what the council states are its key recommendations will reduce the cost of advice by around $2,000 per client. The council&#8217;s three key recommendations are:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Abolishing the safe harbour steps<strong>*<\/strong><\/li>\n<li>Introducing Letters of Advice<\/li>\n<li>Simplifying the categories of advice<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>While each of these key recommendations is pivotal in achieving a better outcome for advisers and the consumers they serve, the FSC ranks the abolition of the seven safe harbour steps as the most critical of all, with this opinion based on adviser feedback. It notes in its white paper that:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>&#8230;the safe harbour steps are the number one driver of cost and the biggest obstacle to accessing affordable &#8230;advice<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><em>Feedback from across the advice community is that [the safe harbour steps are] the number one driver of cost and the biggest obstacle to accessing affordable and compliant scalable advice aligned with consumer needs.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Do you agree with this statement? Does it accord with your own experience as an adviser or as a member of an advice support team? Or do you think there&#8217;s another factor that trumps the seven safe harbour steps when it comes to driving down the cost of advice?<\/p>\n<p>As usual, there&#8217;s more we can talk about, but it&#8217;s time to hand the conversation to you. Tell us what you think and we&#8217;ll report back next week&#8230;<\/p>\n<p><em><strong>*<\/strong>To satisfy the seven steps for safe harbour in section 961B(2) of the Corporations Act 2001, together with an eighth general provision, an advice provider must:<\/em><\/p>\n<ol>\n<li><em>Identify the objectives, financial situation and needs of the client that were disclosed by the client through instructions<\/em><\/li>\n<li><em>Identify the subject matter of the advice sought by the client (whether explicitly or implicitly)<\/em><\/li>\n<li><em>Identify the objectives, financial situation and needs of the client that would reasonably be considered relevant to the advice sought on that subject matter (client\u2019s relevant circumstances)<\/em><\/li>\n<li><em>If it is reasonably apparent that information relating to the client\u2019s relevant circumstances is incomplete or inaccurate, make reasonable inquiries to obtain complete and accurate information<\/em><\/li>\n<li><em>Assess whether the advice provider has the expertise required to provide the client with advice on the subject matter sought and, if not, decline to provide the advice<\/em><\/li>\n<li><em>If it would be reasonable to consider recommending a financial product: conduct a reasonable investigation into the financial products that might achieve the objectives and meet the needs of the client that would reasonably be considered relevant to advice on that subject matter; and assess the information gathered in the investigation<\/em><\/li>\n<li><em>Base all judgements in advising the client on the client\u2019s relevant circumstances<\/em><\/li>\n<li><em>Take any other step that, at the time the advice is provided, would reasonably be regarded as being in the best interests of the client, given the client\u2019s relevant circumstances<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Our latest poll seeks your opinion about one of the key planks in the FSC&#8217;s blueprint for the future of financial advice, released last week (see: Landmark White Paper Blueprint&#8230;). The council&#8217;s white paper details 31 recommendations intended to: Drive down the cost of advice Deliver significant time saving in the provision of advice Create [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":58191,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,49],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-58185","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-compliance-regulation","8":"category-polls"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58185","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=58185"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58185\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/58191"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58185"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=58185"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=58185"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}