The Treasury Laws Amendment (Design and Distribution Obligations and Product Intervention Powers or DDO) legislation was passed by parliament last week. The law introduces a design and distribution obligations regime for financial services firms as well as a product intervention power for ASIC. We’ve previously written about the importance of this legislation, but here we take a more detailed look at what the potential outcomes will be for advisers, licensees and product manufacturers.
In a media release, ASIC welcomed the passage of the new laws and stated that “The design and distribution obligations will bring accountability for issuers and distributors to design, market and distribute financial and credit products that meet consumer needs”
Phased in over two years, this will require issuers to identify in advance the consumers for whom their products are appropriate, and direct distribution to that target market. ASIC's product intervention power are effective immediately. Find out the justification for why the laws were needed here.
Outcomes
DDO is like an “insurance policy” against best interest test by ensuring consumers are treated fairly and products are suitable, where that product is provided as part of an advised relationship. Financial product manufacturers will have to better understand how advisers and advice businesses are assessing customer requirements and matching the right products to their circumstances.
Know Your Adviser (KYA)
To ensure compliance with the new laws and to protect themselves from negative consequences, it will be incumbent on financial product manufacturers to seek greater insight into how the licensees and advice firms who distribute their products are structured and operating. We will likely see a sharper focus on the groups they choose to work with, rather than taking a scattergun approach to winning revenue by any means.
Third party sources of information may be sought, to enrich the understanding for manufacturers of how their products are being applied for consumers. This could include crowd-sourced assessments by advisers of licensees and vendors, crowd-sourced assessments by consumers of their advice experience, and other more empirical assessments.
D2C Challenges
For fund managers, many of whom are seeing the Direct 2 Consumer market as an increasingly important part of their multi-channel strategy, the DDO laws are directly applicable for promotion of listed product like mfunds, ETFs and LICs. How far these manufacturers have to go to establish target market, fit and suitability is unclear when the very nature of exchanges is that the manufacturer has no visibility of the end customer.
Niche Advising
This dynamic potentially mirrors an equivalent development occurring for advisers as they seek to evolve their business models in a post-Royal Commission world. Apart from transitioning away from commissions and other forms of conflicted remuneration, another likely response is advice businesses narrowing their span of control to concentrate on specific areas of expertise, types of clients or stages of life.
This “niching” can help drive operational/cost efficiencies, reduce risk by tighter controls under a narrower business model, raise margins by regaining some price-setting advantages (ie. like a medical specialist / surgeon) and potentially greater client loyalty due to improved adviser-client matching which would help drive better rapport and clear service expectations.
ASIC Interrogation
ASIC is already starting to focus more on the mid-tier and smaller licensees around conduct, quality of surveillance, and other risk management considerations. These investigations will lead to an increased understanding across the industry about what is deemed acceptable or not, what is deemed within safe boundaries of behaviour and process and what’s not.
Enforcement and penalties
The laws give ASIC powers to enforce the new arrangements. These include the ability to request necessary information, issue stop orders where there is a suspected contravention of the law and to make exemptions and modifications to the new arrangements. These powers are similar to those that ASIC has under the current disclosure regime.
There are civil and criminal penalties that apply to contraventions of the new arrangements. The combination of civil and criminal penalties allows ASIC or the prosecutor (as the case may be) to take a proportional approach to enforcing the new obligations. In addition, a person who suffers loss or damage because of a contravention of certain new obligations may recover that loss by bringing a civil claim. Criminal penalties range from 12 months to 5 years in prison and civil penalties of up to $200,000 for individuals and $1 million for corporates.
Key Points in Passed Legislation
The new laws are designed to assist consumers to obtain appropriate financial products by requiring issuers and distributors to have a customer-centric approach to designing, marketing and distributing financial products. The "Target Market" determination is crucial.
The design obligations are:
- to make a publicly available target market determination;
- to review the target market determination as required to ensure it remains appropriate;
- to keep records of the person’s decisions in relation to the new regime; and
- to notify ASIC of any significant dealings in a product that are not consistent with the product’s target market determination.
The distribution obligations are:
- not to engage in ‘retail product distribution conduct’ in relation to a product unless a target market determination has been made; – ‘retail product distribution conduct’ is, in relation to a product, dealing in relation to a retail client, providing financial product advice to a retail client, or giving a disclosure document or PDS to a retail client;
- not to engage in retail product distribution conduct where a target market determination may no longer be appropriate;
- to take reasonable steps so that retail product distribution conduct is consistent with the target market determination;
- to collect information specified by the issuer and complaints related to a product and provide both to the issuer; and
- to notify the issuer of a product of any significant dealings in the product that are not consistent with the products target market determination.
Article by:
Comments6
"I tend to think this will add a very heavy compliance burden requiring AFSL's making attestations about the appropriateness of advice provided by their advisers. Who would be an RM going forward? How will this affect the industry funds and their call centre advice models? Are they exempt? Or will the target market determination simply be based on an aged based demographic? I fear that reducing life cover associated with unitised insurance could lead to some interesting class actions against industry super fund insurance."
Gil 17:11 on 10 Apr 19
"Lance R - every dodgy, unethical adviser should be punished to the full extent available. The problem is that product manufacturers always have done and always will - look for ways to maximise distribution of their product. We must separate advice from product - that is our only way forward. Separating advice from product means protecting those ethical advisers amongst us (who are our future) from the influence of heavyweight product manufactiuers."
John Moreton 16:02 on 10 Apr 19
"@John Moreton - what about in the associated article where unemployment insurance cover was being sold on a wide spread basis to unemployed people who couldn't claim it. Where were the advisers and their legislated obligation to act in their clients best interest then? Push a product, get commission. Conflicted much? Now if a product manufacturer continues to "always seek to maximise distribution of their product" against the letter of this legislation, they will be punished. As they should be. What they have to do now is make sure they don't service dodgy unethical advisers who flog product to people with no use for them. Insurance commissions be damned. Entire supply chain on notice. Good thing. Why be scared of taking responsibility??"
Lance R 15:45 on 10 Apr 19
"A financial adviser has a legislated obligation to ensure that his/her advice is to secure the best interests of the client. A product manufacturer will always seek to maximise distribution of their products. The thought that a product manufacturer has a role to seek to understand advisers, influence advisers or supervise advisers is unacceptable - unacceptable in any shape, colour or form."
John Moreton 15:11 on 10 Apr 19
"$1 million for corporates won't stop much - unless it is for each individual infringement"
Tired 14:52 on 10 Apr 19
"How will product manufacturers ensure that an adviser sell a product to the correct client? Surely if an adviser does this the manufacturer can't be held responsible? What if they amend the target market determination and a client already in the product no longer fits the specs? Do they have to be pulled out and put in something new? While the 4 and 5 points of the laws listed above seem simple enough on the surface, I just can't see how these laws will function effectively without a massive increase in compliance cost - both time and effort. They are just another stick to try to ensure the industry does the right thing and won't stop anything, but will be used retrospectively to try to punish wrongdoers , only after the horse has bolted. "
Craig T 14:28 on 10 Apr 19