FDS uncertainty remains despite amendment announcement

financial-planning/FOFA/future-of-financial-advice/federal-government/

22 January 2014
| By Staff |
image
image image
expand image

Despite the announcement of amendments to the Future of Financial Advice (FOFA,) uncertainty remains about whether planners should be completing Fee Disclosure Statements (FDS) by the end of this month.

Midwinter managing director Julian Plummer said many planners who used his group's software were extremely busy processing FDSs before the 31 January deadline to notify clients of their financial advice fee arrangements.

Plummer said these advisers were unsure of where they stood. Some were taking the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) at its word, while others had received legal advice that they should produce FDSs for all clients until the amendments had been made law.

Under the FOFA amendments, FDSs should be supplied to clients signing with a planner from 1 July 2013, with ASIC stating in December last year that it was taking "a facilitative approach to the FOFA reforms until mid-2014".

ASIC also stated it would not take action against breaches of those parts of the FOFA legislation under amendment unless it found "deliberate breaches of the new requirements or failure to make reasonable efforts to comply".

However, Holley Nethercote partner David Court said much of the confusion around FDSs had been eliminated before the amendments were announced by planners moving to comply with the FOFA legislation.

"There have been two camps with this issue. Those who took a risk that there would be a change in government and the announcement of FOFA amendments — and those who acted first and made the changes required under FOFA.

"We found that most advisers chose to take the latter path, and the only area of concern was the engagement date they had to nominate for existing clients where that date was not already recorded."

Court said his planner clients wanted to avoid operating under two systems and two regimes and had moved their businesses to comply with the pre-amendment FOFA requirements.

"The FOFA amendments could be considered an unintended reward for not acting, which turned out to be a valid tactic for those who did not act and relied on the Federal Government's statements on FOFA while in Opposition," Court said.

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

MARKET INSIGHTS

The succession dilemma is more than just a matter of commitments.This isn’t simply about younger vs. older advisers. It’...

1 week 3 days ago

Significant ethical issues there. If a relationship is in the process of breaking down then both parties are likely to b...

1 month ago

It's not licensees not putting them on, it's small businesses (that are licensed) that cannot afford to put them on. The...

1 month 1 week ago

AMP has settled on two court proceedings: one class action which affected superannuation members and a second regarding insurer policies. ...

3 days 17 hours ago

ASIC has released the results of the latest adviser exam, with August’s pass mark improving on the sitting from a year ago. ...

1 week 6 days ago

The inquiry into the collapse of Dixon Advisory and broader wealth management companies by the Senate economics references committee will not be re-adopted. ...

2 weeks 6 days ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND
Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
moneymanagement logo