Planner licensing to cost more under user-pays
Financial planners contemplating taking the self-licensed route can expect to pay more the privilege under the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) user-pays regime being contemplated by the Government.
The Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, Kelly O’Dwyer has released the consultation paper outlining the proposed fee for service approach which will apply to ASIC, and it reveals that financial planners will be amongst those facing higher costs depending on what they intend to do.
According to the consultation paper released by O’Dwyer, ASIC is aiming to charge what it claims it actually costs with respect to processing licensing applications.
It said ASIC was “proposing to cost some licence applications at a more granular level (through tiering), which more closely aligns the fee being charged to the regulatory effort involved in assessing the application”.
It said this recognised stakeholder feedback that costing both full and limited licence applications at the same set fee might be a potential hindrance to encouraging entities from applying for a limited licence.
“The complexity relating to AFS licence applications will be determined dependent on client type and the services and products selected when applying,” it said.
The proposed fee schedule outlined in the ASIC consultation paper would see low-level complexity individual retail license applications costed at $3,349 while highly complexity retail individual applications would be costed at $7,537.
Retail body corporate complex applications were costed at $11,305.
Stakeholders have until 15 December to respond to the consultation paper.
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.
