Access, affordability are collateral damage

You are so very, very right. It has taken a long time for me to see or hear what you have written in its entirety. Can we keep it up on ASIC, hold them to account and expect some pragmatism and not, exclusively, legal jargon and threats.

Financial advisers are, for the most part, energetic and enthusiastic people and are seeking to do just their job and clients appreciate this but for some others.

Well done Phil Anderson and the AFA for publicising the consequences of ASIC Report 515.

This initiative by ASIC has created an unlevel playing field between those licensed by the big 5 and the rest. It has given the smaller licensees an unfair advantage.

Why is this so? More questions need to be asked of the regulator. Hopefully this activity is transferred to all other advisers quickly so we are all in the same boat soon.

This is very informative. I did not know this was happening behind the scenes. As a planner I did see many examples (this year and last) of auditors and vetters making up new rules at the last moment in order to catch planners out. I thought it was a lack of internal controls. This article says that an inconsistent ASIC is the external cause.

The headline is half right. On the conservative side of politics it is collateral damage and those politicians have learned not to care. Better to have a smaller industry than an embarrassing industry. On the Labor side it is the main goal. Less access and higher costs will reduce competition for the industry funds. That is what they want, and they are happy that the private sector should shrink. The conflict of interest in superannuation held by the ALP is a permanent ulcer for the Australian people.

Great article. I am sure those issues are being discussed by our associations but I do feel we need stronger more transparent lobbying

You have nailed the issues here that affect all advisers, not just those affected by GF commissions and not just those worried about FASEA. We are now referring a lot of advice on that has any red flags at all such as the possibility of insurance being included, it is just too hard. I feel like i no longer know how to do my job but it is interesting to look at the ASIC website and still see their sample SoA of just 12 pages that supposedly meets all requirements.

If institutions have pre-vet teams it suggests humans can follow the rules, except it seems poor ol' advisers. Can they not also learn to the same competency, then do peer reviews of each other that also lifts Best Practise? Why is this?

The greater argument suggests only bespoke financial 'tailors' can deliver what 95% of the populace need in the market of financial 'suits'. Not true of course. Its just that until now there has been only one access point in the main. Thats changing with or without advisers.

We failed to self regulate. We moaned incessantly. We failed to change. We failed to market our worth. Then,sadly failing to take equal responsibility for the outcome alongside executives. Where is the shared culpability here? None except the younger amongst us are victims here. We failed to 'out' recalcitrant mates. Most of us also wanted something for nothing in the likes of adviser association funding, rugby, lunches, trips, cheap Dealer fees and free practise management. Most sort the easy way, the cheap way.

Those that truly pursued 'best practise' and invested fully in their practise management themselves over years will find the now sometimes over regulation (including what has been pointed out in this article) nothing more than an added expense and annoyance.

Time for industry commentary to stop crying, stop trying to wind things back, take some responsibility and constructively innovate. Move forward and fast. This wont come from associations or institutions, but small enterprises that are prepared to think differtently.