{"id":9300,"date":"2011-02-16T09:57:16","date_gmt":"2011-02-15T22:57:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/?p=9300"},"modified":"2021-02-16T18:25:24","modified_gmt":"2021-02-16T08:25:24","slug":"advisers-opting-out-of-opt-in","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/2011\/02\/16\/advisers-opting-out-of-opt-in\/","title":{"rendered":"Advisers Opting Out of Opt-in"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\t\t
Does the introduction of a statutory fiduciary duty to act in the client's best interests overcome the need to introduce client opt-in measures?<\/strong><\/div>
    \n\t\t
  • Yes (77%)<\/small>
    <\/div><\/li>\n\t\t
  • No (19%)<\/small>
    <\/div><\/li>\n\t\t
  • Not sure (4%)<\/small>
    <\/div><\/li>\n\t\t<\/ul>
    <\/div><\/div>\n\t\t\n<\/div>\n\n

    Most\u00a0advisers believe there is no need for client opt-in provisions within Future of Financial Advice reforms, according to our latest poll.<\/p>\n

    In response to the question:<\/p>\n

    Does the introduction of a statutory fiduciary duty to act in the client’s best interests overcome the need to introduce client opt-in measures?<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

      \n
    • 76% of advisers agree<\/li>\n
    • 20% disagree<\/li>\n
    • 4% remain undecided<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

      Based on a number of\u00a0responses provided by advisers, this\u00a0voting outcome may reflect a\u00a0more general objection to the principle of opt-in itself, rather than whether statutory fiduciary duty makes it redundant.<\/p>\n

      The general tone of many responses we have received relate to why opt-in measures will be a burden for advice practices and\/or the fact that effective opt-out processes currently practised by many advisers achieve the same\u00a0protection for the client intended by opt-in.<\/p>\n

      Other comments, however, address whether advisers have properly thought through the implications to their practice of statutory fiduciary duty and the penalties that may be involved if the adviser may in future be found to have breached the legislated guidelines:<\/p>\n

      the planning industry generally doesn’t fully understand the current situation, or the proposed reforms<\/h6>\n

      … the reason why riskinfo has said “they (the advisers) have voiced little to no objection over the proposed introduction of a statutory fiduciary duty requirement that advisers act in the best interests of their client” is because the planning industry generally doesn’t fully understand the current situation, or the proposed reforms.<\/em><\/p>\n

      But here and elsewhere, there has been little connection made between the intended protection afforded the client by statutory fiduciary duty obligations and what may then be seen to be un-necessary or redundant\u00a0processes required under the opt-in provisions.<\/p>\n

      But either way, tell us what you think.\u00a0 Should both fiduciary duty and opt-in be established in order to properly protect the client’s interests?\u00a0 Or do current regulations already achieve this?\u00a0 Does fiduciary duty make opt-in redundant?\u00a0 Or is it more a case that most advisers simply don’t want opt-in under any circumstances?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      Most\u00a0advisers believe there is no need for client opt-in provisions within Future of Financial Advice reforms, according to our latest poll.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,49,270],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9300","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","category-compliance-regulation","category-polls","category-remuneration","headers-new"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9300","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=9300"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9300\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9300"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9300"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9300"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}