Cutting regulation trumps scaled advice in reducing costs
The Financial Planning Association (FPA) is absolutely on the money in identifying breaking down regulation and rolling the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) into the new single disciplinary body, according to a survey being conducted by Money Management.
The survey has strongly confirmed that reducing regulatory red tape is viewed by advisers as being the number one factor which would help drive down the cost of advice.
While this week’s Financial Services Council (FSC) financial planning summit pointed to the greater use of scaled advice as being fundamental to reduce advice costs, 67% of respondents to the Money Management survey nominated reducing regulation as the most effective cost-reduction measure, followed by making advice tax-deductible (14.29%).
The survey found that only 10.2% of respondents believed that removing barriers to accessing scaled advice would help in reducing costs.
The survey also confirmed strong continuing adviser negativity towards FASEA, with nearly 88% of respondents agreeing that it should be rolled into the Government’s new single disciplinary body, rather than remaining as a stand-alone entity.
The Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology, Senator Jane Hume has signalled the Government will likely have the necessary legislation to establish the single disciplinary body ready by the middle of next year.
Recommended for you
ASIC has issued infringement notices to two AFSLs over financial advisers providing personal advice while they were unregistered.
Australian retirees could increase their projected annual incomes by as much as 51 per cent through comprehensive financial advice, according to a Vanguard study, but cost continues to be an issue.
AMP has announced a senior appointment to its North leadership team, reinforcing the firm’s commitment to the advice industry.
Despite the financial adviser exam being rooted in ethics, two professional year advisers believe the lack of support and transparency from the regulator around the exam is unethical.
