FPA says ASIC should not baulk at asset-based fees
Financial Planning Association (FPA) chief executive Mark Rantall has made clear he does not believe asset-based fees should become an issue in the Australian Securities and Investments Commission's (ASIC) consideration of class order relief from opt-in.
Participating in a Money Management roundtable in the direct aftermath of the passage of the Future of Financial Advice (FOFA) bills, Rantall said the FPA would argue very strongly that an asset-based fee should not have anything to do with class order relief from opt-in.
"The intent of opt-in was to ensure consumers were not paying for advice they weren't receiving," he said.
"The discussion we've had with Government and regulators so far is that there is a requirement that if you're paying for advice you're receiving advice, and that is as far as you have to go to obviate opt-in.
"We won't be countenancing the removal of asset-based fees," Rantall said. "Asset-based fees are a charging mechanism and the product of a negotiation between the client and their professional financial planner."
Association of Financial Advisers chief executive Richard Klipin agreed with Rantall that asset-based fees ought to no longer be a part of the discussion around opt-in, but rather a part of the discussion between clients and their financial advisers.
"There are a range of ways that advisers and principals will run their business models, the main thing is disclosure," he said.
Mercer's Jo-Anne Bloch told the roundtable that she did not believe the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) would make an issue about asset-based fees, and that if the regulator had intended to do so it would have "forced the issue" before now.
Bloch said Mercer's clients had a choice - they could pay a fixed fee for an on-going service or pay an asset-based fee.
"I have to tell you that nine out of 10 choose an asset-based fee, and the difference is that an asset-based fee is disclosed, it is in their statement every year, it is in their annual review, whereas a commission never was, it was built into the management expense ratio, it was netted out of returns and it wasn't very transparent," she said.
Recommended for you
The Governance Institute has said ASIC’s governance arrangements are no longer “fit for purpose” in a time when financial markets are quickly innovating and cyber crime becomes a threat.
Compliance professionals working in financial services are facing burnout risk as higher workloads, coupled with the ever-changing regulation, place notable strain on staff.
The Senate economics legislation committee has recommended Schedule 1 of the Delivering Better Financial Outcomes legislation be passed as it is a “faithful implementation” of the recommendations.
Treasurer Jim Chalmers has handed down his third budget, outlining the government’s macroeconomic forecasts and changes to superannuation.
