Is self-licensing worth the cost?
Two advice professionals examine the cost-effectiveness of running your own licensee and whether the expenses are worth the benefits it provides.
Money Management recently explored the estimated costs and insurance risks of operating your own Australian financial services licence (AFSL), from the upfront cost of lodging an ASIC application to the various ongoing expenses.
Adam McGuren, national manager at The Principals’ Community, provided further clarity on the specific costs involved for those who are thinking of taking the leap into self-licensing.
“Businesses will initially consult with a compliance or legal consultant to attain the cost of obtaining their own licence, but that’s only part of the equation. It’s really important that they look more thoroughly than that,” he told Money Management.
“Depending on what the business looks like, those costs can vary dramatically. You can’t really give a specific number.”
The Principals’ Community provides support services to self-licensed advice practices and conducts a bottom-up cost analysis for each business. The range of expenses can include the following:
- AFSL application through a consultant
- ASIC levy and ongoing licence fees
- Professional indemnity and cyber insurance
- Financial accounting and auditing
- Investment research costs
- Ongoing education and professional development
- Governance and compliance support
- Advice software and technology
For Esencia Wealth chief executive Matthew Fenning, going down the self-licensed route was a “no brainer” for him. However, advisers should not underestimate the substantial costs and time involved, he told Money Management.
“For us, it was a no brainer. But it’s something that you’ve got to invest a lot of time and resources into. It’s not to be underestimated. It’s not going to always be a ‘grass is greener’ type situation for everyone. It is a lot of work and it requires a lot of senior people in the business committing time to it,” he said.
Is it cost-effective?
While some might assume that self-licensing will save them money, Fenning added that this may not always be the case depending on the size and scale of the practice.
“The reality is that if you’re a smaller business, the time commitment to doing it fully and properly will be substantial. We spent a lot of money to make sure that we got it right. That’s one of the things that people need to really do their homework; not only what help they need, but whose time are they going to invest in. What’s the opportunity cost of that?
“With scale, [self-licensing] would definitely work out to be more cost-effective in the long run.”
Similarly, McGuren said that smaller advice practices without the benefits of scale might operate more effectively with the support of a larger AFSL.
“From a cost point of view, smaller businesses would generally benefit better from being under a larger licence model, because of those operating and fixed costs of having a licence. Larger businesses can better leverage the existing infrastructure which probably makes it more cost-effective for them,” he explained.
Greater autonomy
Costs aside, the key reason for advisers opening up their own AFSL boils down to the desire for freedom and flexibility, free of influence from a licensee that may have differing views, McGuren added.
He unpacked: “I doubt that any of them would say they went to their own licence purely to save costs. Most of the businesses have gone down the self-licence path primarily for the autonomy and agility to make decisions and operate in a manner that suits them.”
This was the primary driver for Esencia Wealth, Fenning noted: “It was about the ability to control the business much more greatly, to make decisions that directly benefit clients and the business more intimately and to operate in a more flexible manner.”
However, the decision is largely personal and depends on the individual adviser’s preferences as to how they want to run their practice, McGuren added.
“Do I want to focus on just seeing clients or do I want the additional responsibility of running the licence and the costs that go with that? It comes down to how they want to run the business. If they want autonomy and speed, then it obviously makes sense for them to get their own licence if they are happy with the extra responsibilities.”
AUTHOR
Jasmine Siljic
Recommended for you
Having sold Madison to Infocus earlier this year, Clime has now set up a new financial advice licensee with eight advisers.
With licensees such as Insignia looking to AI for advice efficiencies, they are being urged to write clear AI policies as soon as possible to prevent a “Wild West” of providers being used by their practices.
Iress has revealed the number of clients per adviser that top advice firms serve, as well as how many client meetings they conduct each week.
Morningstar has made two business development appointments to drive the growth strategy of its financial advice software, AdviserLogic.
It's not about cost. It's about what is ethically and morally the right thing to do for Australians and your peers. Having a blood-sucking leach of a licensee where the more complex things are the greater their value add is not in the best interest of anyone but themselves. These licensee fist pump every time a bit of complexity is introduced and pass it on to their customers and that's Advisers.
Advisers are still living in the 1980's in an environment where they hide behind a licensee in an employee and employer like relationship thinking that the employer will protect them from their mistakes and represent their best needs.
So it costs you just a little more time and costs just a little more... Wake up. But what has it cost you really in over-regulation and a lack or representation and professionalism?