Login
ASIC singles out SMSF advisers
Industry associations have welcomed additional disclosure requirements proposed by the corporate regulator but questioned whether the sector is being disproportionately targeted.
Yesterday, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) acted on its taskforce's finding of “room for improvement” in the SMSF advice sector, proposing additional disclosure requirements be placed on professional advisers working with SMSF trustees.
“Given the significance of the decision to establish an SMSF, and the growth of this sector, we think there is a need to improve the quality of advice given to clients when establishing or switching to an SMSF,” the report states.
“We propose to do this by imposing specific disclosure obligations on those who provide advice on SMSFs, to assist clients in making a decision about whether to establish or switch to an SMSF.”
Referencing the collapse of Trio and subsequent detriment to SMSF investors, the report specifically calls for a requirement to inform SMSF clients about compensation options available to them under the SIS Act – or lack thereof.
The SMSF Professionals’ Association of Australia (SPAA) welcomed the consultation paper, pledging to engage with ASIC during the consultation process.
“The announcement by ASIC today is consistent with SPAA’s objective as the peak body for the SMSF sector in Australia,” said SPAA chief executive Andrea Slattery.
“SPAA is an advocate for the highest professional standards and competence to ensure SMSF trustees always receive the best possible advice.”
However, SPAA’s director of professional standards, Graeme Colley, told SMSF Adviser that the regulator may have over-emphasised some aspects of the report, including the issue of costs associated with SMSF establishment and management.
“It’s fair enough that they are looking at costs – but there are a whole range of reasons why people go into self-managed funds, and costs is not the main one from what we can gather,” Mr Colley said.
While Mr Colley declined to comment directly on whether ASIC is unfairly targeting the sector, Mr Colley did say it was “interesting that we don’t see similar analysis of the larger superannuation funds and whether a particular fund may be the right one for a particular client”.
The Institute of Chartered Accountants Australia (ICAA) also welcomed the consultation paper, but the ICAA’s head of superannuation, Liz Westover, said that ASIC’s focus on the advisers working in the sector may not reflect the reality of risks existing in the SMSF space.
“The real hole in the picture for me is those trustees that are not getting any advice,” Ms Westover told SMSF Adviser.
“You’re not required [to get] advice to set up an SMSF, You can go to online providers and download all your own legal documents… so my concern is how do we make sure those people are not only able to access advice but do actually access that information.
“I think we’ve got to be very careful that we don’t overregulate to the point where it becomes too costly to obtain advice.”
There is also strong ASIC interest in people being put into SMSF too early without enough critical mass to justify cost which is fair enough but no interest in people in managed funds with big balances not being informed they could have far far lower admin and management costs with a SMSF if they are interested and willing to run one. Why?0- ASIC do seem very impressed with the ability of APRA regulated funds to may be get some compensation if the Minister so deems it if they suffer fraud whilst a SMSF won't. ASIC seem unaware that the most important underlying principle of reducing your exposure to fraud is taking control of your own money. They are silent on this on their factsheets and silent on the fact the compensation is at Ministers discretion and silent that a levy is imposed to fund it.
These are the people currently policing SMSF advisors for bias!
I'm sure it isn't because if SMSF sector grows their patch ( APRA funds) shrinks and the ATO's (SMSF) grows.0 - Have a listen to this mob (ICAA). Where have they been about their own membership setting up SMSF's for years and then 'recommending' clients go into property whilst getting a clip on a loan they refer. These associations have no credibility and are now exposed. To suggest online is a threat is just trash talk. The real threat has been there for years and not a word has been spoken. Unlicensed 'advice' is what will haunt the tax and accountant industries for the next 30 years. For god's sake to suggest they are the professionals most qualified to advise on SMSF. They can't even rollover to pension phase without involving a licensed planner.0
Subscribe to the
BULLETIN
Get the latest news and opinions delivered to your inbox each morning
Subscribe
