regulation

In September last year, the Australian government fixed a glaring anomaly in the country’s laws, under which Australia had embarrassingly fallen short of global standards in fighting financial crime.

Licensees were given a month to clean up the information they provided to ASIC about adviser qualifications and training. That time is up, and enforcement action is not off the table.

The government’s line on its proposed changes to advice in super is incongruous with the actual changes. You can’t re-do the language embedded in the SIS Act while denying that anything will be different.

It’s an aspect of financial services regulation that was flawed from the outset and has become all but useless over time. The divergence in opinions on how to fix it could give some hint as to why it’s taken so long to address.

ASIC made no secret of its assertion that Lanterne operated purely as a “licensee for hire”, which is an ominous reminder for licensees operating with thin risk and compliance standards that the regulator is watching.

On what was set up as a discussion around the proposals put forward by the Quality of Advice Review, the topic repeatedly shifted to the frustration providers felt at not being able to work with ASIC to bring compliant solutions to market.

Multi-strategy separately managed accounts (SMAs) are “taking off like you wouldn’t believe”, according to SQM Research CEO Louis Christopher, but the rapid increase in their use could also be creating a regulatory blind spot.

While the move to tax superannuation balances above $3 million at a higher rate would affect only a handful of people at first, if the threshold is not indexed to inflation, future generations may be turned off from investing in their super, industry leaders say.

Consumers will be bamboozled by the government’s plan to divide advisers into “experienced” and “relevant” camps, the association explained. That, and the need for a sunset clause, mean the current proposal needs work.

While FoFA was the right policy for its era, Ripoll says the industry has come a long way and has different needs. The Quality of Advice Review’s proposals are an “important step” for today’s industry, he believes.