Of all the recommendations to come out of the Royal Commission’s final report, the one with the most immediate material concern for advisers are the recommendations around changing the ways they are remunerated. Going to the heart of the “poor advice” issue, Hayne has pointed to adviser so-called conflicted remuneration – in particular grandfathered commissions and insurance commissions, recommending they both (eventually) be reduced to zero. This would, in the commissioner’s eyes, help ensure advice clients get the best advice for their individual situation and help thwart the temptation for advisers to use products that give them the most commission.
Needless to say, if these two proposals were enacted, they would significantly effect a large proportion of adviser revenue streams and force a re-think in the fee structure of many firm’s businesses. we have calculated the removal of grandfathered commission alone would wipe over a billion dollars of profit from advisers collectively, per year.
We have used data sourced from the Adviser Ratings Landscape Report Survey and other proprietary sources to compile the following graphic illustrations of potential scenarios. While all advisers positions are different and somewhat unique, our data indicates that average Adviser Income would fall by 42% following the removal of grandfathered commissions, whilst removing grandfathered commissions AND life insurance trail commissions would see adviser income fall by 58%
The recommendations stand to significantly disrupt both the profitability and sustainability of many advice practices that have heavily relied on trail commissions, and should put further pressure on already falling business valuations and practice owner exits from the industry. Unsurprisingly, this is also likely to accelerate the implementation of fee-for-service business models as well as put pressure on the retention of asset-based pricing models dressed up as fee-for-service. The cost of advice for consumers could climb by over 70% as advisers, move further towards fee for service models to replace lost income.
The government is likely to approve a staged removal over 12-24 months, attempting to limit the damage to industry by allowing advice businesses to make an orderly transition to new fee arrangements. Nevertheless, impacts will invariably include poorly managed business transitions (from vendor to acquirer), further adviser turnover, and potentially high levels of stranded or orphaned advised clients and associated wealth.
These changes will also affect distribution dynamics between financial product manufacturers and licensee groups, as relationships built on conflicted remuneration either extraneously paid by manufacturers, or embedded in financial product fees are dismantled. Removal of conflicted payments embedded within legacy products may initially make them cheaper therefore more appealing, however even allowing for that, many of these products will suffer by comparison to contemporary offerings. We are likely to see some renovation of financial product suites as certain legacy products are rationalised and others modified. Subsequent overhauls are anticipated for licensee approved product lists for licensees and platform menus.
Looking at the decimation of adviser revenue, it might be worthwhile noting how Hayne came to his recommendations.
Hayne’s reasoning, as noted in his Interim report begins:
“consideration of conflicts of interest, or more accurately, conflicts between duty and interest, begins from two simple points:
- So long as advisers stand to benefit financially from clients acting on the advice that is given, the adviser’s interests conflict with the client’s interests.
- So long as licensees stand to benefit financially from clients acting on the advice that is given, the licensee’s interests conflict with the client’s interests.
The client’s interests always require consideration of whether to take any step, and only then, consideration of what steps to take. Doing nothing is an available choice. Sometimes it is the best choice.
If steps are to be taken, it is in the client’s interests to take whatever steps are best for them (best both in the sense of achieving the best outcome for the client, but best also in the sense of achieving that outcome most efficiently at the best available price).
By contrast, the adviser’s and licensee’s interests are to have the client buy a product or make an investment that will give the adviser, the licensee, or both, a financial benefit. Not only is it in their interests to have the client do something rather than do nothing, it is in their interests to have the client take a step from which the adviser, the licensee, or both will benefit financially.”
The pure legal rationality of what Hayne articulates here is logical, but advisers would no doubt take issue with this reasoning. It is after all in the adviser’s interest (and law requires) to act in the client’s best interest. Also assuming an adviser would always act to benefit themselves financially is akin to assuming all humans follow the out-dated model of homo-economicus, making rational choices to maximise their own utility. Advisers who deal with human clients making decisions on an everyday basis would certainly know that is not the case.
Regardless – Hayne justifies his reasoning by pointing to ASIC’s January 2018 report – ‘Financial Advice: Vertically Integrated Institutions and Conflicts of Interest’,which showed “that (although) third party products made up nearly 80% of the (APL) lists, it also showed that, overall, more than two-thirds (by value) of the investments made by clients were made in in-house products.
His conclusion is as follows:
“The result is not surprising. Advisers may be expected to know more about the products manufactured by the licensee with which the advisers are associated than they know about a rival licensee’s products. Advisers will often be readily persuaded that the products ‘their’ licensee offers are as good as, if not better than, those of a rival. And when those views align with the adviser’s personal financial interests, advising the client to use an in-house product will much more often than not follow as night follows day.
It is the very fact that the result is not surprising that shows that the premise of the current law is flawed. It is not surprising that, despite the breadth of approved product lists, more than two-thirds (by value) of the investments made by clients of vertically integrated institutions were made in in-house products.And that is not surprising because experience shows, and has shown for decades, that, more often than not, interest trumps duty. But, as noted above, the premise for the FoFA reforms was that, although conflicts between the duties owed by an adviser or a licensee and the interests of that adviser or that licensee exist and must be recognised, those conflicts can be ‘managed’ and regulated. As I have said, the FoFA reforms were not designed to eliminate the conflicts, but to try to ameliorate their consequences.”
Hayne concludes with “As the January 2018 ASIC report shows, however, the law, as it stands, has not resulted in conflicts being managed successfully”…which leads us to his recommendations to rid the industry of commissions. In addition to recommending the abolition of grandfathered commissions on all financial products, Commissioner Hayne said commissions on life insurance – which are now exempt from the ban on conflicted remuneration – should be dialled down and eventually phased out following the 2022 review - "Unless there is a clear justification for retaining those commissions, the cap should ultimately be reduced to zero," the Commissioner said.
It makes sense that many advisers might leave the industry if the recommendations become law. An "advice gap" appears to be a likely outcome—the rising cost of fee-for-service advice could deter clients who can no longer afford the upfront fee. Consequently, many Australians who might have sought advice may no longer do so, or at least, they will need to wait until new business models develop that can meet their financial needs.
Article by:
Comments21
"Just like Gladys has been tapped on the shoulder after doing the hard job that nobody wanted to do, the dirty role of convincing apathetic Australians to get an injection, once the hard job has been done she will never get the credit and the 'invisible hand' steps in the take over and get the credit. The platforms had a hard time convincing Aussies of their scam to be a product (rather than a wrapping paper) and so enlisted the help of those with no capital. Once the job had been done, it 'bye bye, we can take it from here, eff-off', and the step in to take all the glory. Really good friends of ours those platforms were. Marketing that something is nothing, the client would have been better off with direct share portfolios (as the ruling class smsf owners know). All scams get found out and just as they are being found out (index funds and ETFs better than active ones and advisers putting funds there) suddenly the platforms have no need for advisers anymore. It was all so much easier to control when advisers were "tied", controlled in house sales people , then they got too big for their boots, they thought that they could put clients interests above that OF THE PLATFORMS(the real problem not the advisers interest) and so it was time for the elite platform owners (and their political managers who from the right families) to rip the rug out from under them. The main modelling they have been doing is not modelling of financial markets, its been modelling of consumer behaviour ('behavioural finance') and marketing - ie. knowing the point at when consumers are ready to kiss goodbye to their adviser and feel confident to go it alone. Of course first they have to undermine the relationship by telling customers they have been getting screwed by their partner the adviser, undermine the trust, and then suggest to them they might like to save some dollars and besides, they will help them with online webinars anyway. For me? Im doing a law degree. Wow what a breath of fresh air that is. Thats when you realise what a profession is, and what allows you to charge. "
P.Stoff. 20:20 on 01 Oct 21
"Basically what Haynes is saying is that Financial Advice is worthless. His comment that often the best decision is for the client to do nothing despite advice belies/hints at this. Of course we wouldn't want to be lead to believe that if clients never engaged a lawyer that they would be better off, that lawyers can get clients into more trouble/exacerbate conflicts in order to fix up the mess they exacerbated. In the old days, a long time ago, lawyers used to financially advise clients on their investments, tailor making trusts. Lawyers have made so much money suing financial institutions, the RC was like one big advertisement to pied piper clients into hiring guess who? A lawyer. Its disappointing the Industry Body/s is/are impotent. I guess money will now revert to the control of a) platforms and b) industry funds. Banks will continue to run their cold call centres as distribution. Advisers now have no saleable asset whereas the platforms orphans will continue to grow substantially. Independent licensees probably are part of the target. As usual the problem statement is fine (conflict of interest when product manufacturers control distribution) but the solution(remove grandfathered commissions - what?) is a disconnect from that problem statement. Usual hallmarks of a con. They know this wont affect product manufacturers except to remove an expense item from their P&L. They will simply keep the client and remove the adviser. As in any lynching, someone is held to blame (the fake Super Funds like Astarra/Trio, the fake AGribusinesses had far more damage to clients than an adviser like Storm who got caught in the GFC but where is the RC into that and how to stop fake investment companies birthing? O remove grandfathered commissions that will fix it.) Clearly the RC (as far as I know there is no royal involvement, the Privy Purse is all land anyway) is about curtailing the uppity distribution arm that overstepped themselves and whom didnt start with ownership of capital. The banks who store the money supply and were probably never keen on this Dutch invention of shares as a shadow banking system sought to own its competitor and as it turns out, a few idiots who embezzeled in the experiment with agent agreements brought an unwanted spotlight to everyman advice sector. Tax planning and investments now to revert to the rich, as the proper custodians of everyman savings accounts should be banks, the trade unions(like England buying off Scottish leaders and making them nobles The Government to remunerate their reps of the workers from the inside). Rich will continue to invest direct, by dealing with a financial adviser who is a nephew, who is or was also employed by an investment bank. Funds to retain TV advertising and salaried salespeople. Firms like Mossack Fonseca showed how small firms more prone to privacy issues exposing the wealthy secrets of hiding wealth and good investment returns do not make up for a breach of privacy. "
Andrew 18:08 on 23 Mar 20
"Hayne is misguided in his conclusion. He has no expertise in the analysis of business models or market dynamics. His view is very simplistic and idealistic. A similar mentality prevailed in Treasury when they allowed the pass through of credit card merchant service fees. We all heard the argument that merchants would charge less for cash. The end result was a price rise or surcharge applied to card transactions. If Hayne what Hayne proposes is appropriate for financial services it should apply to every service. There must be a cessation on legal work done on contingency as lawyers have a conflicted interest in encouraging people to take action. Remuneration must be solely hourly based or charged piece rate. Medical advice must also be subject to scrutiny. Doctors must declare conflicted remuneration and justify treatments prescribed including benefits to them. Hayne's socialist tendencies and ego have undermined the RC. A similar "
wayne 12:22 on 09 Feb 19
"Hat’s off to the banks and their political henchmen. By writing the terms of reference for the RC, the big 4 have been able to influence the outcome of these hearings. Hayne is boundt by legal precedent and practice. He may understand the profound damage he is doing, but he will still stick to the tenets of his profession. By setting the ground rules for their iwn examination the banks have been able to give the impression of contrition. They will even pay some fines & compensation - collectively about $6bn. However this is short-term gain for long-term gain. Thanks to the RC, the banks will: • take back the 59% in market share they had lost to mortgage brokers • shore up future customers by offering “free” loans through their salaried employees while mortgage brokers must charge fees to get paid • potentially do the same to the insurance industry in 2021. Amazing! I give up. Which bank is hiring financial planners. Give me their number... "
Alan Steele 19:45 on 07 Feb 19
"The Government's Response to Recommendation 2.5 in the Royal Commission is: In 2017, the Government enacted reforms to life insurance remuneration that capped the commissions a financial adviser would receive for providing advice in relation to the purchase of a life insurance product. As part of these reforms, the Government announced that ASIC would conduct a review in 2021 to consider whether the reforms have better aligned the interests of advisers and consumers. If the review does not identify significant improvement in the quality of advice, the Government stated it would move to mandate level commissions, as was recommended by the Financial System Inquiry. The Government supports ASIC conducting this review and considering the factors identified by the Royal Commission when undertaking this review. DO NOT JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS. "
Greg Hayter 18:59 on 07 Feb 19
"So the banks have come in and destroyed our industry with the Vertical Integration model.... I accept that. Maybe a better solution is that no product owner/manufacturer is allowed to own any equity in distribution? If 80% of bank planners use their parent companies products then close down those licences. But this means all bank, insurance company, Industry Fund, fund manager etc. This way an advisor can clearly always work in the clients best interest without any interference from a product owner. When you also consider that the losses mentioned above wont simply be horrendous for the advice industry what about the consumer? Yet 94% of all advised clients who have put in an insurance claim have had it successfully paid out. Why is this the case, firstly because of the great work that the advisor has done initially and also because at point of claim we represent the client and not the insurance company. Yesterday we successfully had a $407,000 life insurance claim paid. the clients family engaged our services as the Industry Fund refused the claim initially. After 4 months of arguments with the Industry Fund the claim was paid. so who do these people turn to in the future? And the life insurance companies? If there are no advisors then there are no new premiums {or substantially reduced} and with no new premiums, policy's will simply become totally unaffordable as life companies struggle to simply remain profitable. 28 years in this wonderful industry, $38,000,000 in claims paid and never had one refused. "
TK 16:00 on 07 Feb 19
"Hayne missed a huge opportunity to make fundamental and valuable change to our industry. He sounds like he got caught up in the semantics of the law while missing the bigger picture. The reality is that the purpose of superannuation is to provide for the retirement income of Australians and to alleviate the pressure on the age pension. This is required because the age pension as it stands is unsustainable for the country. Financial advisers are the key to helping Australian workers maximise their superannuation, therefore, it was crucial to remove all conflicts so that we could get paid for our advice while acting in the clients/member's best interest. Vertical integration needed to be removed because it means that advisers employed in this model will almost always recommend their product at the expense of the client/member's best interest. The ideal situation is where every registered financial adviser had the ability to make a recommendation on any fund they found was in the client's best interest while also being able to deduct their advice fee from the member/client's super fund. Money would move to the better funds and market forces would then ensure that product providers keep improving their products which has the end result of maximising super balances as well as retirement outcomes - which is the whole point of super. "
Brett 15:08 on 07 Feb 19
"Here's one idea to make up the lost income. Provide services to clients and charge reasonable fees for those services. It works well in other professions, so there is a chance that it may work in Financial Advice too. "
Anton 13:59 on 07 Feb 19
"….Our industry has been under attack by many vested interest groups, ever since the collapse of 'Storm' over 10 years ago! Some of these groups include - our competitors the ISN, politicians, bureaucrats, unions, media and legals. The RC was the 'excuse' to destroy our industry and a few other industries which have since become collateral damage.(mortgage/general insurance brokers). When things like this occur, you have to stand back and look at the events, step by step and then join the dots to form a conclusion. You then have to ask, who ultimately benefits from these changes.....the customer/client?.....really?....I don't think so. Seeking Financial Advice will not be affordable for the 'average' person. General Advice/Intrafund Advice will now be the only viable option for the 'average' person....People still want 'human' contact, when seeking advice on their future goals....so robo is going to cut it for now...I guess some vested interest groups will now benefit from these changes! "
Michael 13:38 on 07 Feb 19
"I hear the pain above... and have felt it personally for a long time. Our industry bodies are inward looking (protecting turf) rather than protecting the small business owner IMO. I have spoken to many advisers to lobby Fed MP to little avail. In fact, most just shrugged their shoulders and said all this was inevitable, just move on. Well, it is not inevitable... people power has always moved those in power who want to stay in power. It is by being loud and honest that we gain support from those outside of our industry too. Shout out your pain to everyone and especially to your MP and Senators. (who?) Also, join lobby groups and consider Grant Abbotts new party. Consider the action as a battle to save not just our industry from oblivion but rather to allow our clients to continue to afford good quality advice. Bad legislation is just that, Bad. All legislation can be repealed (even if gov is reluctant to do so). All legislation can be amended and quite honestly, a revolt by the people affected (any AUssie who needs advice included) can bring about massive change. Only 7% of a community can sway a community.... surely we can be motivated to do that? bleating here will not make one iota of difference... it is out there where it counts. Come on everyone, pull together and lets get a result that is more acceptable."
Steve Legg 13:33 on 07 Feb 19
"I was given a book by my principle in 2012, when I started out as a financial planner called "Who Moved My Cheese". The wisdom contained in the book is very relevant to this discussion and my provide us the advisers with clarity on our next steps. "
Taffie 13:10 on 07 Feb 19
"Quote from above.. "So long as advisers stand to benefit financially from clients acting on the advice that is given, the adviser’s interests conflict with the client’s interests." Interestingly, I do very little insurance with the bulk of my work being retirement planning and investment work and my fees constitute a plan fee and an implementation fee which applies only if the client goes ahead with the advice. Both fees are complexity based and have nothing to do with FUM etc. My understanding is that the detractors of the current system want this but reading the quote above, the implementation fee is conflicted as I only get paid that if the client proceeds. Should I charge it regardless of whether they proceed or not to avoid conflict? No system is perfect."
Tom 12:59 on 07 Feb 19
"Well done Adviser Ratings for the first comprehensive research done on the numbers. The first question to ask is the social cost of the pure economics of ending grandfathered income suddenly, This trashing of 2 industries that provide a service that is affordable now is highly discriminatory to women. How about 5 years to allow advisers, single mothers, young advisers and those who are creating succession plans some time to repay those loans. Add in FASEA, the exam and the cost of doing ethics 3 times, exam, FASEA subject and 9 hours CPD on the same subject. Seriously. This muck is not in the client's best interests. Angry, upset and scared clients that they have lost their adviser and grieve the loss and they don't have the expertise to do it for themselves. Enough. 30,000 redundancies, mostly women support staff and single parent mortgage brokers who work around their family responsibilities. Centrelink will find their payments increase. Government will lose taxpayers. Not one politician or Hayne considered the fallout. Too well paid. "
Philippa Hunt 12:35 on 07 Feb 19
"If "vertically intregrated solutions" have been targeted as the evil then why are we as IFA's being tarred with the same brush!! These people are idiots. "
Bradley Cochrane 12:11 on 07 Feb 19
"The Royal Commission ran for 14 months (10,200 hours) at a cost of $75,000,000 to the tax payer that is $7,350 p/hr for every single hour of the day. Now and adviser can earn $62,000 a year after paying $20,000 to complete further education over the next 7 years. Oh and by the way the business that you have built up over the last 15 years that is worthless, because 'your clients are not tradable' "
Matt Robertson 11:49 on 07 Feb 19
"Clients want to know that the advisor they choose is someone who is financially and business savvy themselves. Also that they are ethical. I have done countless calculations and worked out that to continue as a financial advisor I would essentially be making a bad business and financial decision unless I were to start charging considerably more, (which I do not want to do, as that puts advice out of reach for most people and is against my principles). Therefore, I’m afraid that the very qualities clients are looking for in an advisor are the same ones which could mean they struggle to find what they are looking for, or have to skip the human touch and hope that AI advances quickly enough. Well played though on the part of the banks and the fintechs. The field is now yours!"
Anna-Louise Brown 11:15 on 07 Feb 19
"The mockery is that the average bloke in the street will not be able to pay for the advice they once got for minimal cost while remuneration models have gradually evolved over the years. The basis upon which Hayne and his lawyer friends condemned the industry is flimsy and history..... charging fees to dead people - dead people don't have bank accounts? and if they do why? churning - never seen one bit of data to show this is true and if true why didn't Ins Companies tell the folk involved to cut it out? fee for no service - there were products years ago that had inbuilt commissions... there never ever was anything in writing that said that "commission" was supposed to cover "service" and NOW who will get that commission because it is still part of the original contract of investment AND LETS NOT FORGET OUR INDUSTRY FUND COUSINS ….. if they are for their members, why would they spend lost of advertising money coming out of existing members pockets to get new members? ……… sweetheart deals STARTING WITH LABOR PARTY LEGISLATION FORCING union member sot put their money into a union fund (collusion) which compulsorily grew in value with kick backs to the unions and then to the labor party …. is this not a scam of mammoth proportions , hidden under a veneer of "looking after members" ?"
john WALKER 11:10 on 07 Feb 19
"The implications are far worse than a reduction in income, or profit for advisers. Financial Planning advice is NOT Tax Deductible, so the increased cost to clients is not 70%, it is approximately 110%. ( Gross earning 110% - 34.5% Tax = 72.05% net income to pay the fee with after Tax dollars. ) There are only so many expenses a person can pay with after Tax Dollars and the end result will be less Australians being able to get advice, which will create much larger problems than a small grandfathered trail ever would have. I think the Government and regulators confuse – income with profit. If adviser’s incomes fall to $62,000 post RC, this is not sufficient to justify staying in the industry, especially with all the involved risks and mind numbing red tape for the provision of advice. Hayne, like many public servants, does not live in the real world, with the inherent complexities and risks the private sector faces, which are alien to him and his like. Apathy, greed and fear are the 3 biggest killers of wealth management, not a trail commission – which is in actual fact a small price to pay for the great work and service, the majority of advisers provide. "
Jeremy Wright 11:06 on 07 Feb 19
"“The result is not surprising. Advisers may be expected to know more about the products manufactured by the licensee with which the advisers are associated than they know about a rival licensee’s products. Advisers will often be readily persuaded that the products ‘their’ licensee offers are as good as, if not better than, those of a rival. And when those views align with the adviser’s personal financial interests, advising the client to use an in-house product will much more often than not follow as night follows day. Yet, we have no recommendation to separate ownership by a product manufacturer of an advice licensee?"
Geoff Whiddon 10:54 on 07 Feb 19
"Congratulations to Adviser Ratings for publishing this article on the implications of grandfathered commissions ending! We now have an estimate of the cost to small businesses around the country of Hayne's recommendation. It's huge. No wonder the SMSF Party has been formed by Grant Abbott and the LICG (Life Insurance Consumer Group) has been formed. Advisers are also joining the Finance Sector Union. I wrote the following to Dante De Gori on June 5 last year and then comments made then are still valid today: "I read with dismay the report in “Money Management” 24th May 2018, that the FPA submission to the Banking Royal Commission recommended the ending of grandfathered commissions. In 2009 when Jo-Anne Bloch recommended the ending of commission payments to financial planners for super, pension and investment monies she had the decency to publish a discussion paper and consult with members face to face at meetings in all major cities and give members an opportunity to comment. I did comment on this issue in front of about 100 members at the Melbourne meeting. On this occasion given the gravity of the outcome there doesn’t appear to have been any substantive consultation before the submission was made. I note the AFA has taken the opposite stance. Wouldn’t it have made sense to come up with a joint position like the Accounting bodies do when there are important matters to be considered for the future of the profession. The consequences of this decision (if grandfathered commissions are discontinued) are huge. They include: • Many of us have made business decisions on the basis the grandfathering was going to continue. After all we have had nearly 5 years of certainty under the FoFA regime. The business decisions included borrowing money to buy client bases that had grandfathered commissions in them. If there was an inkling these were to be phased out the multiples paid would have been a lot lower! Staff have been employed on the basis that servicing revenue would continue. Investments have been made in premises and leases taken out on the basis that commissions where warranted would be safe. • As mentioned in an earlier email to all of you many clients can’t be moved from grandfathered products because it will reduce their Age Pension payments due to the deductible amount ceasing for allocated pensions. Moving clients in super and investment accounts will also trigger Capital Gains Tax. Some clients don’t want to move because they are happy with the net returns from their current investments despite the trailing commissions. • Existing planners retirements would be affected by these commissions ending as the revenue they are looking to sell will fall. The number of buyers for client bases will potentially fall if there is any uncertainty at the very point where there is possibly going to be a mass exodus due to the higher education requirements about to arrive. Lenders may not lend the sort of money they are lending now. • In 2013 when FoFA came in abolition of commissions retrospectively didn’t occur because unlike the UK (with RDR), we have a written constitution and it was deemed there’d be compensation payable for the seizure of private property. A bit like someone’s house being acquired by the government so a freeway can be built. If grandfathered commissions are phased out we’d be expecting compensation. However the multiple we get may be a lot lower, a bit like the taxi licence debacle in Victoria. • From our clients’ perspective FoFA says we have to ensure all our recommendations are provided through the filter of Best Interests Duty so over time grandfathered commissions will disappear but not because of some arbitrary decision. Self-employed financial planners are the ones that are going to be most impacted. Employed advisers in the big institutions just move onto another job and this is where the problem originated in the first place. As a member of the FPA I expected my organisation to fight to maintain our position knowing the massive implications giving up these commissions would cause. I‘m amazed at the meek surrender in the face of the shrill media coverage". Since I wrote this I have heard of marriage breakups, near bankruptcies and potentially worse before the Royal Commission recommendations were handed down. The mortgage broker organisations have come out strongly to defend the potential decimation of their industry. We should be as well."
Daryl La' Brooy 10:48 on 07 Feb 19
"Congrats to Hayne in having the ability to wipe out 2 industries virtually overnight. You have NO IDEA of the impact your recommendations make on average Australians. You are basically taking away competition in the mortgage sector and forcing people to banks. In the Insurance industry you are wiping out a huge cohort of people that cannot afford to pay a fee for insurance advice, and therefore end up setting up a go fund me page or having a substandard insurance via their Super Fund, or an even more substandard direct product. Everyone mentions the LIF reforms and just wait and see.....the Labor opposition, who will no doubt coast in at the next election, have basically said they want to get this stuff rolling NOW. The death knell is sounding and it wont be pretty for average Aussies"
Paul Langdale 10:21 on 07 Feb 19