The Morrison government has announced it will fast-track its response to the Hayne royal commission, in what Treasurer Frydenberg called the largest financial services law reform package in three decades. By mid-next year, the government expects to have 90 per cent of its reform commitments completed. The announcement is sure to put more pressure on the decisions advisers are making about their futures, particularly those AMP aligned advisers who are effected by AMP recent decision to reduce what they are willing to pay for advice businesses under their Buyer of Last resort (BOLR) agreements.
Legislation has been introduced at the start of this month to end grandfathered commissions for financial advisers by 2021. It's been estimated this change alone could reduce some advisers annual revenues by up to 30%.
Challenge To Grandfathering Changes
The changes to grandfathering of commissions will affect many advisers and put a dent in their revenue and the AOIFP has even engaged a law firm to challenge the changes in the high court, citing Section 51(31) of the Constitution, which states that the Commonwealth has the power to make laws with respect to "the acquisition of property on just terms”.
They argue the federal government can take a person’s property, such as varying payments derived from their contractual arrangements with product manufacturers, but they must be fairly compensated.
ANZ alluded to the argument last year during the Royal Commission, warning that any government seeking to use legislation to end grandfathered arrangements might "encounter constitutional difficulties" and said the government could end up having to compensate an army of advisers for removing an important part of their livelihood.
Justice Hayne pre-empted the argument in his final report in February stating “Whenever change is mooted, someone will suggest that changing the permitted forms of remuneration would lead to constitutional difficulties because it would amount to an acquisition of property otherwise than on just terms…(but) First, where would be the acquisition? Who would acquire anything? What proprietary benefit or interest would accrue to any person?”
Australian National University College of Law associate professor Ron Levy was quoted as saying the case had “little chance” of succeeding because the Commonwealth was not gaining from the eradication of the commissions and was entitled to regulate an industry.
Adviser Numbers To Decrease
Other challenges to the governments legislative agenda have come from the Financial Services Union (FSU), who told politicians the fallout from regulatory overreach would reduce adviser numbers and make it harder for average Australians to get advice.And are now lobbying against the tough new education standards.
Financial Planning Association CEO Dante De Gori is on record as saying the new education standards under FASEA could see adviser numbers fall by up to 40 per cent by 2024.
Advisers industry wide are trying to come to terms with the changes being introduced and are re-evaluating whether they can maintain their positions with increases to compliance costs and decreasing revenues. Grandfathered commissions alone are estimated at $1.5 billion to $2 billion a year– that will no longer go to advisers.
AMP Limited’s group executive, advice, Alex Wade recently told Money Managementthat AMP was looking at advice businesses future capability and that they would identify and support businesses that are capable of digesting the industry disruption and re-structuring for the future.
Fewer than 50 per cent of AMP aligned practices are believed to making recurring revenue of less than $200,000 and AMP believes that single operator practices in this bracket will be increasingly challenged by the cost of office space, back office staff and rising compliance costs.
AMP’s new strategy centres around the belief that many Australians needs for financial advice will be serviced through digital, phone and web-based advice channels. Where this leaves many hundreds of “underperforming” advice firms is seemingly – out of business.
BOLR Fallout
Criticism of AMP’s changes to it’s BOLR arrangements to its advisers has continued. Speaking to Fairfax media, Seaview Consulting director Bob Neill said that while smaller financial planning practices were usually valued between 2.4 and 2.8 times their revenue, the "disappointing" aspect about the AMP situation was that advisers had been operating in a "cocooned" environment where they had been encouraged to buy-in with promised exit prices that "were never market prices". Regarding AMPs debt funding of advisers, he said "They were actively pursued and encouraged to participate, so I think the management of AMP has a bit to answer for in promoting a fairytale that at some point had to end. You can’t have something that defies market forces forever."
While this observation is an easy enough one to make in hindsight, the real world outcome is far from a fairytale for many of the advisers concerned.
Article by:
Comments6
"The Government is going to kill the insurance industry, causing more people to be not covered, more claims on social welfare, higher Government costs, need to appoint more public service people to handle complaints, who would need to be educated, and the list goes on. Politicians are out there giving advice, making decisions on our behalf, collecting big pay packets, exorbitant superannuation and perks, so why are they different than Insurance and Financial Advisors. Why is there one rule for them, and another rule for everyone else. All I can say it will be a sad day for Australia and all who works and lives here. It will take for ever to undo the damage done. Last point, are all the savings on this implementation saving our clients with their premiums? With the reduction in commission, I have not seen a letter to any of my clients stating that their premium has reduced. Strange about that. "
Kevin 10:55 on 23 Aug 19
"Are they talking about fees for no service? The only thing I know to be grandfathered in financial planning, is whether or not you have to get a client to "opt in" every two years or not."
Advice Monger 09:32 on 22 Aug 19
"Just remind me... who's the winner from all of this? "
John 22:12 on 21 Aug 19
"In 2009 I thought commissions would be seen as negative by consumers and started adjusting my business accordingly and tried multiple fee structures, hourly rate, a flat fee , then % and flat fee etc . It was further flagged that vertical aligned advice would also be one day questioned. I also predicted the cost of delivering advice would go up, which mean't closer relationships and a particular way to grow a business. Only thing I got wrong is I thought I'd have about five years to change and it took some 10 years to come true. I even got myself edu me cated. I can't see why so many advisers have been caught asleep at the wheel and we're calling this some type of crisis. I personally don't see what all the fuss is about. However I can see if you're only source of training has been AMP or some product manufacturer then yes you've been duped and treated like a mushroom. Half of these advisers have also been kept in the dark about what a fiduciary relationship is in order to get more FUM and I believe that's a ticking time bomb for some advisers. Just wait till these licensees throw the adviser under the bus next stock market crash. "
David G 19:07 on 21 Aug 19
"Great and succinct piece; well written. The real question remains as to whether, collectively, we let alot of this occur as "betterment" for the consumer. My "gut" and clients are telling a different story - the complete opposite"
Michael Tadros 17:52 on 21 Aug 19
"The end will come quicker than many adviser realise. Once they start haemorrhaging cash, they'll have to shut up quick smart and their clients will be left with a sour taste off advice. If they both tried I do not think the industry (with their wilful ignorance) and the government (with their craven vote buying regulation - after years of kicking the can down the road) could come up with a worse outcome for the industry and for people who want to get financial advice. Adviser leave - price of advice goes up - less people get advice - only rich can afford it - the rest it seems (if AMPs "solution" is anything to go by, will be stuck on hold in phone line hell - or even better, they'll get advice on-line and tick a box saying they've read the t&c's - or the disclosure statement (yeah right!) - and everything will be hunky dory. What bull$&)^!"
Steve G 16:09 on 21 Aug 19