SOA myths and mistakes

when somethings continue to be found lacking maybe there is too much emphasis on the regulation and not the purpose of the advice - when one considers the number of transactions in financial services dealt with/by and by an adviser/office the number of clients who have an issue remain minimal - regulation like political correctness has no finishing line

like it always has been , the real substance of advice is the verbal interaction between client and adviser - lets not forget , clients still have a responsibility in the advice process

One of the challenges in deciphering what to take from surveys such as the one that this commentary is passed, is the degree to which each of the 75%+ of SoAs 'failed' the expectations of the reviewer.

I suspect that that they must have been substantial shortcomings to rate the mention: and reading through this report leaves you thinking that the majority of Advisers are producing substantially non-compliant advice documents. If this is the case, it is not surprising given the extent and complexity of the regulations and guidance that have been imposed on the sector.

An interesting statistic when such reports are being produced, would be to know how many advice documents have been provided by the advisers reviewed during the twelve month period of their review, how many of those have resulted in sub-standard financial performance for the client; and how many complaints have arisen - and been upheld - from that subset of the total adviser population (and the degree to which that statistic can be relied on to judge the sector).

The author makes some good points but like most lawyers, including those at ASIC, seems to think all clients are willing and able to pay for a level of research, advice, documentation, and implementation that they feel is overkill and inappropriate use of their limited funds. Advisers have the challenge to keep both regulators and clients happy because they are often approaching this from two different perspectives. Surely the key test should be whether the client is better off as a result of the advice. Unfortunately, the compliance driven approach that has been forced on current advisers because of industry shortcomings in the past means that many people can't be helped because the cost to deliver compliant advice is either not warranted by the issues at hand or the client is unwilling or unable to pay the required fee.

If 75% fail the test, and the handful of big institutions control(led) 80% of advice - what does that say ?