Home / Legislation / Senate inquiry highlights challenge facing advisory market

Senate inquiry highlights challenge facing advisory market

'Moral hazard' central to CSLR concerns from consumer and advice industry
Legislation

The Compensation Scheme of Last Resort, or CSLR, has become something of a lightning rod for the finance industry in 2022; and yet we are less than a month into the year. While almost every impacted party agrees on the importance of the new scheme, few can agree on who should pay for it, and be considered within its purview.

‘Moral hazard’ has been raised on numerous occasions by both the Financial Services Council, representing the managed investment scheme industry, as well as advice industry bodies like the SMSF Association and the Association of Financial Advisers (AFA.)

They refer to the imperfect structure of a consumer compensation scheme which relies upon those companies, at this point only financial advisers, that are well-managed and not receiving complaints, to fund complaints and unpaid settlements against other members of their own industry, or those that have already left.

  • The FSC has broadly provided support for the CSLR, suggesting it be combined with everything from higher capital requirements and a more competitive professional indemnity insurance environment for the financial advice industry among other issues. But the call to include all managed investment schemes has been met with strong pushback.

    The group, among other bodies, highlights that the majority of the recent unpaid determinations are due to financial advisory firms and their subsequent failure, or shutdown resulting in the non-payment of restitution to affected clients. They suggest including managed investment schemes in the CSLR would result in a similar issue, in that the best-managed would be paying for those who have disappeared, impacting clients.

    Similarly, Senator Jane Hume, Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy, noted that the purpose of the CSLR isn’t to cover the costs of risky investments failing, although that seems to be the driver of many of the complaints towards advisers.

    The SMSF Association, being the peak body for SMSF specialist advisers and accountants, offered its opinion at the Senate Inquiry this week, highlighting that it was “deeply concerned” that the scheme doesn’t include all market participants. SMSFA refers to the fact that many SMSF trustees and investors do not engage with financial advisers, and therefore have few if any ways to seek compensation when investments go wrong or fail.

    Specifically, the SMSF peak body is concerned about the history of “substantial financial losses because of the misconduct and subsequent insolvency of managed investment schemes,” including the well covered Trio Capital failure. The association remains a strong supporter of any measures that “strengthen consumer protection” but is wary of adding another financial burden onto the advice industry.

    Most importantly, it flagged the importance of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) retaining its power, and ensuring that the CSLR “does not in any way distract or disincentivise AFCA from taking active and appropriate measures”. The association believes clear guidance is required around “the expected level of AFCA endeavour and action to chase down unpaid determinations and fees.”

    Drew Meredith

    Drew is publisher of the Inside Network's mastheads and a principal adviser at Wattle Partners.




    Print Article

    Related
    The 6 ways policymakers can fix advice in the 2024/25 budget: FAAA

    The collation of issues is an important marker for how many areas of advice legislation still need improvement for the industry to thrive, with fairness at the heart of all the proposals put forward by the association.

    Tahn Sharpe | 5th Feb 2024 | More
    Super tax break costs misrepresented: Mercer

    The idea that superannuation tax concessions are costing the government more than the Age Pension is based on bad analysis, according to Mercer, which found that concessions will actually save taxpayers in the long run.

    Lisa Uhlman | 31st Aug 2023 | More
    Review into ASIC funding model recommends levy discount cut and… another review

    While finding that more research is needed to determine if the “definitions, metrics and formulas” used to calculate levies remain fit‑for‑purpose, Treasury was able to determine that advisers should no longer benefit from discounted levies.

    Tahn Sharpe | 29th Jun 2023 | More
    Popular
  • Popular posts: