Opposition voices planners' pain
Small business financial planners have been flooding the offices of the Federal Opposition with concerns that the Government’s so-called Future of Financial Advice reforms will eliminate their ability to service mum and dad investors.
The Opposition spokesman on Financial Services, Luke Hartsuyker, has told the Parliament about the level of feedback he has received from financial planners — adding that the Government’s changes had the potential to force a complete restructuring of planning businesses and also push some planners out of the industry.
At the same time, Hartsuyker denied that the Federal Opposition was opposed to financial planners providing advice in the best interests of their clients.
“The Coalition supports efforts to minimise the potential for conflicts of interest within the financial advisory industry,” he said. “We have previously stated that trailing commissions that do not provide the investor with an opportunity to opt out should be removed from the industry, and payments made by product manufacturers to advisers must in fact be for the provision of advice and not merely an income stream for the adviser.”
Hartsuyker said the Coalition’s concerns were around how the Government’s intended legislation could hurt small business planners and could impact on the ability of low-income earners to receive financial advice.
AUTHOR
Mike Taylor
Recommended for you
The corporate regulator has issued infringement notices to three AFSLs whose financial advisers provided personal advice to a retail client while unregistered.
Rather than taking a controlling approach, the latest generation of overseas private equity deals is helping advice firms to achieve their growth ambitions, three commentators have said.
Private wealth firm Fitzpatricks Group has appointed a newly created head of product, who previously spent 20 years at CFS, to bolster its range of investment options.
The Financial Services and Credit Panel has made a written direction after advice regarding non-concessional contributions meant an individual was forced to withdraw over $330,000 from their super.
