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
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

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

1 month 3 weeks ago

This verdict highlights something deeply wrong and rotten at the heart of the FSCP. We are witnessing a heavy-handed, op...

2 months ago

Interesting. Would be good to know the details of the StrategyOne deal....

2 months ago

SuperRatings has shared the median estimated return for balanced superannuation funds for the calendar year 2024, finding the year achieved “strong and consistent positiv...

2 weeks 2 days ago

Original bidder Bain Capital, which saw its first offer rejected in December, has returned with a revised bid for Insignia Financial....

1 week 2 days ago

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 a...

1 week ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS