Tax-style “high audit” system proposed for advice space
Financial advisers’ high regulatory burden is the product of a system that wrongly fails to distinguish “high risk” and “low risk” advice, an adviser believes.
Just as the tax system delineates higher risk players with a “high audit” status, so too should financial advice regulators, according to MEDIQ Financial managing director and AFA Rising Star Ravi Agarwal.
“The people who are providing advice 'low audit’ advice, things like making sure they have the right superannuation and insurances and they have a plan and are working towards financial goals shouldn’t have the onus placed on them to prove that they are not double gearing into a property fund,” he told Money Management.
Agarwal believes the failure to separate riskier financial activities from those offered by everyday advisers is damaging client/adviser relationships and the profession’s perception among the wider community.
He said anything involving complex exposure that is difficult to articulate to the client, such as derivatives, should be subject to rigorous regulatory guidelines, but retail advice should be subject to less scrutiny.
Recommended for you
ASIC’s enforcement action is having an active start to the new financial year, banning a former Queensland financial adviser for 10 years in relation to fees for no service conduct.
ASIC has confirmed the industry funding levy for the 2024–25 financial year, and how much licensees can expect to pay.
Australian licensees are expected to make greater use of custom model portfolios for their clients, according to State Street Investment Management, following in the footsteps of US peers.
Adviser Ratings has argued that it’s time for more advisers to utilise digital engagement tools available to them as a disconnect grows between consumers seeking advice from finfluencers and from professionals.
