Have we come to a fork in the road?
By
Kate Kachor
Mon 07 Sep 2009
The corporate regulator's submission to the joint parliamentary committee seems to have caused quite a stir.
Since last week, the rumour mill has begun to turn a little faster with heads of dealer groups and practice principals claiming opportunities within the market have picked up.
However, it seems the increase in opportunities has not been caused by the slight upwards curve of the markets, with advisers keen to get out while the going is good.
The decision for many to step away from the industry is due to ASIC's submission.
To quote one unnamed dealer group managing director, "it has really thrown a cat among the pigeons".
A number of advisers are now second guessing their desire to remain in the marketplace.
Many of them are selling off their licences in a bid to escape any further changes to industry regulation.
While the common theme isn't necessarily heading towards the 'too hard basket', for many advisers who were looking to action their succession plan this year, they are finding themselves at the crossroads.
For many, ASIC's push for asset-based remuneration will signal the ultimate career decision - do I stay or do I go?
"Why would I buy a business based on recurring revenue when that recurring revenue may not be there in the future, it might just be an hourly fee," the unnamed chief said.
"It has [ASIC's submission] slowed everyone up. It's just stopped the whole buying and selling of the practices."
Those people who should sell out and retire at the moment are thinking how do I do that? How do I get out?
"When you've got a market of many sellers and a few buyers because of the uncertainty it is likely to push prices down," the chief said.
Earlier this month the FPA raised a number of concerns based on ASIC's submission, particularly the regulator's view on asset-based fees.
The FPA has made it very clear in its Financial Planner Remuneration Paper that consumers should be able to choose between an hourly-based fee and an asset-based fee, FPA chief Jo-Anne Bloch said.
In both circumstances the fee must be agreed between the client and their planner; it must be disclosed separately from any product fee; the fee must be paid for by the client; and the fee can be switched off if advice is no longer needed or provided.
"If an hourly-based fee is the only payment allowed, middle Australia will suffer the most. At the one end of the advice spectrum paying $200 for simple advice is affordable, and at the high net worth end paying around $3000 for a comprehensive strategy is probably acceptable too," Bloch said.
"However, if you are just starting out on your financial journey, forking out $3000 for a strategic review that would position your finances for the next 20 years may simply be out of reach, never mind the review process that is needed to keep you on track."
Using hourly-based fees alone presents a potentially detrimental step economically that would end up in significant job losses, enormous restructuring and even further loss of confidence in financial advice, she said.
Has ASIC's submission made you second guess your place in the market?
Let us know your thoughts, send an email to kate.kachor@morningstar.com
|
