FOFA changes need further review
It has become self-evident that either directly or indirectly, opt-in is going to drive up the cost of financial advice for many Australian consumers.
The same Treasury officials also confirmed to the Opposition spokesman on Financial Services, Senator Mathias Cormann, that the opt-in arrangement was a virtual fait accompli - the only question that remained was whether it was a one year, three year or five year arrangement.
The Federal Treasury has admitted receiving advice suggesting that the cost of opt-in under the Future of Financial Advice (FOFA) changes will be in the order of $100 per client equating to around an extra $100,000 a year to the average financial planning practice.
This information, delivered to a hearing of the Senate Economics Committee, came only a few days before a number of senior financial planners told a Financial Planning Association (FPA) Sydney chapter luncheon they believed the opt-in arrangements risked abrogating the commonly accepted notion of a contract between a service provider (financial adviser) and a client.
Assuming the figures provided to Treasury are correct and assuming the average financial planning practice turns over less than $1.5 million a year, the addition of $100,000 a year to the underlying cost of doing business is a substantial burden.
When this is taken together with the results of recent polling undertaken by Money Management revealing that virtually all planners would be passing the cost of opt-in through to their clients, then it becomes self-evident that either directly or indirectly, opt-in is going to drive up the cost of financial advice for many Australian consumers.
A question mark also appears to hang over opt-in and whether any legislation designed to enact this provision is capable of withstanding a legal challenge.
It is on this basis that the entire Future of Financial Advice (FOFA) proposals may warrant closer attention on the part of the Parliament, perhaps extending to a review by a Senate Committee to help ensure there are no unintended consequences.
While much of the FOFA agenda was driven by the findings of the Parliamentary Joint Committee chaired by Bernie Ripoll, the agenda has broadened significantly since then and it needs to be remembered that while the Ripoll recommendations went to the issues of commissions and fiduciary duty, it did not specifically canvass opt-in.
The Ripoll recommendations resonated with the financial services industry because they had bipartisan support. The same cannot be said of the FOFA changes — something which suggests a further review may be warranted.
AUTHOR
Mike Taylor
Recommended for you
In this week’s episode of Relative Return Unplugged, AMP chief economist Shane Oliver joins the show to unravel the web of tariffs that US President Donald Trump launched on trading partners and take a look at the way global economies are likely to be impacted.
In this episode of Relative Return, host Laura Dew is joined by Andrew Lockhart, managing partner at Metrics Credit Partners, to discuss the attraction of real estate debt and why it can be a compelling option for portfolio diversification.
In this week’s episode of Relative Return Unplugged, AMP’s chief economist, Shane Oliver, joins us to break down Labor’s budget, focusing on its re-election strategy and cost-of-living support, and cautioning about the long-term impact of structural deficits, increased government spending, and potential risks to productivity growth.
In this episode of Relative Return, host Laura Dew chats with Mark Barnes, head of investment research, and Catherine Yoshimoto, director of product management, from FTSE Russell about markets in Donald Trump's second presidency and how US small caps are faring compared to their large-caps counterpart.
