Choice wants asset-based fees banned
The Future of Financial Advice (FOFA) ban on conflicted remuneration should be extended to asset-based fees, according to consumer group, Choice.
The group has used its submission to the Senate Inquiry into the Scrutiny of Financial Advice, to also argue for the banning of commission-based arrangements related to insurance advice.
"Choice believes that commissions, soft-dollar payments, asset-based fees, and any other form of remuneration that incentivises advisers to recommend a product or volume of products must be removed," the submission said.
"As a starting point, current exemptions to the conflicted remuneration ban should be removed from the Corporations Act," it said.
"The Committee should consider recommending an extension of the ban on conflicted remuneration to asset-based fees. Asset-based fees are ongoing fees calculated as a percentage of the total funds under advice. They have many of the same market distorting features created by commissions, which have already been recognised as inappropriate for advisers," it said.
The Choice submission claimed asset-based fees encouraged advisers to direct clients into certain types of investments.
"They are significantly less transparent than fixed fees, and in cases where an adviser accepts asset-based fees from long-term inactive clients, they allow fee-for-no-service business models to thrive (where a client continues to pay a fee long after they have received advice)," it said.
"Fixed fees for advice, either hourly rates or lump sums, remove these failings," the submission said.
AUTHOR
Mike Taylor
Recommended for you
With AMP advisers moving to Entireti and Insignia being the subject of a private equity bidding war, how can deals be navigated to ensure minimal stress and uncertainty for staff and advisers?
There are seven key mistakes that financial advice businesses need to steer clear of in 2025 to avoid hindering their business growth and profitability, according to Adviser Ratings.
The FAAA has secured CSLR-related documents under the FOI process, after an extended four-month wait, which show little analysis was done on how the scheme’s cost would affect financial advisers.
While advisers are increasingly eyeing private markets and alternative investments, two reports have underlined the lack of investor understanding that persists among both advisers and clients.
