Heavy lifting on grandfathering falls to product issuers

financial-planners/dealer-groups/financial-planning-groups/grandfathered-remuneration/The-Financial-Planning-Association/FPA/the-Association-of-Financial-Advisers/AFA/Josh-Frydenberg/ASIC/australian-securities-and-investments-commission/

31 July 2019
| By Mike |
image
image image
expand image

Product issuers rather than financial planners or dealer groups will have to do the heavy lifting of rebating grandfathered remuneration under the Government’s legislation banning grandfathered arrangements from 1 January, 2021.

A key element of the Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg’s announcement was that product issuers would be responsible for ending grandfathered remuneration, something which is consistent with submissions from both the Financial Planning Association (FPA) and the Association of Financial Advisers (AFA).

The requirement is expected to generate a push by financial services product manufacturers to speed up the transfer of clients out of legacy products which generate commissions to planners and therefore reducing the consequent administrative burden.

The FPA had specifically used a submission to Treasury responding to the regulatory exposure draft to state: “The task of managing the rebating process should rest with product providers and clients should receive the full dollar amount of a commission as a rebate”.

In the end, the Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg pointed out that the legislation provided for the establishment of “a scheme that will provide that those people paying conflicted remuneration rebate clients for any remuneration that would be paid after 1 January 2021”.

Further, he said that to ensure that the benefits of industry renegotiating current arrangements to remove grandfathered conflicted remuneration ahead of 1 January 2021 flowed through to clients, the Government had commissioned the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) to monitor and report on the extent to which product issuers are acting to end the grandfathering of conflicted remuneration”.

This is consistent with the exposure draft which stated that, “generally, the covered person is a product issuer and the other person is a financial adviser or licensee”.

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

MARKET INSIGHTS

So we are now underwriting criminal scams?...

5 months 1 week ago

Glad to see the back of you Steve. You made financial more expensive, not more affordable as you claim, and presided ...

5 months 1 week ago

Completely agree Peter. The definition of 'significant change is circumstances relevant to the scope of the advice' is s...

7 months 1 week ago

The RBA has handed down its much-anticipated rate decision, following widespread expectations of a close call....

2 days 20 hours ago

The FSCP has issued a written direction to an adviser who charged clients “extraordinary fees” for inappropriate and conflicted advice, as well as encouraged them to swit...

2 weeks 3 days ago

ASIC has cancelled the AFSL of an advice firm associated with Shield and First Guardian collapses, and permanently banned its responsible manager. ...

3 weeks 6 days ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND
Fund name
3y(%)pa
2
DomaCom DFS Mortgage
95.46 3 y p.a(%)
5