Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 324

Three financial advice changes nobody is talking about

The long-suffering consumer of financial services has plenty to be pleased about thanks to sweeping industry reforms. The initiatives mark a renaissance for genuinely independent financial advice. There are reforms, however, of which the majority of financial planners and their clients are largely unaware.

Commissioner Kenneth Hayne examined some 10,000 submissions and conducted seven (very) public hearings to arrive at 76 recommendations addressing the problem of trust in financial services. Some of those recommendations have already been implemented by the government, and almost all of the rest will be underway before the end of June 2020, although most people do not realise it.

Treasury’s Financial Services Royal Commission Implementation Roadmap is linked here. Here is a summary of four major changes, three of which are being largely ignored.

1. Definition of 'independent' adviser

On 20 August 2019, the Federal Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, announced that legislation will be introduced so that financial advisers are not permitted to provide advice to a new client without first declaring whether they are classified as ‘independent’ under the law – and, if not, explaining the reasons why not.

The Commissioner said conflicts of interest are “deep-seated issues” at the heart of the many instances of poor advice aired in his hearings. The Future of Financial Advice (FoFA) reforms that started in July 2013 failed to deal with conflicts of interest properly, he said, and the new FASEA standards would likewise fail. He explained that neither increased education nor better disclosure would be sufficient because the “flawed premise” that conflicts can be managed is, in fact, the real problem.

Under existing laws, an adviser is required to ‘manage’ conflicts of interest and disclose, in general terms, certain information about the advice provider. However, there is no requirement for an adviser to bring to the client’s attention the conflicts that prevent the adviser from being independent under the law.

Hayne’s Recommendation 2.2 introduces this obligation by referring to the Financial Services laws relating to independent financial advice, something that few financial advisers fully satisfy. For an adviser to describe his or her services as ‘independent’, ‘impartial’, or ‘unbiased’ (or even similar words such as ‘independently owned’ or ‘non-aligned’) certain conditions must be met, described in section 923A of the Corporations Act. This ‘independence law’ reads like a list of the obstacles to independence:

  • receiving commissions
  • conflicted remuneration (such as fees calculated on the volume of business placed, also known as ‘asset fees’) and
  • associations with product issuers.

Furthermore, in circumstances where an adviser might satisfy these conditions as an individual, yet the adviser’s Financial Services Licensee permits any of its other advisers to have these conflicts, the adviser still fails the independence test.

As yet unseen legislation to be introduced to Parliament by 30 June 2020 will ensure any adviser who does not meet the requirements set out above will – before providing advice – be required to bring that fact to the client’s attention and to explain, prominently, clearly and concisely, why that is so.

2. Annual, in advance opt-in

One of the pieces of evidence tabled during the Royal Commission came to be known as the ‘Fees for No Service’ scandal, where clients were found to be paying fees, in some cases for many years, without receiving any service. The Commissioner said this had been allowed to happen because FoFA’s ‘opt-in’ laws were ‘backward-looking’.

Under existing laws, where a client has entered into an ongoing fee arrangement with a financial adviser, the adviser must give the client an annual Fee Disclosure Statement setting out:

  • the amount of each ongoing fee paid in the previous year
  • information about the services that the client was entitled to receive during the previous year, and
  • information about the services that the client actually received under the arrangement.

Recommendation 2.1 from the Royal Commission reverses this to an annual, ‘forward-looking’ arrangement which:

  • must tell the client clearly what fees he or she will pay, and what services he or she will receive in exchange for those fees, and
  • must not permit or require the deduction of fees from any account held by the client except with the client’s express written authority, which must also be renewed annually.

Frydenberg’s legislation will effectively make illegal the ongoing fee arrangements most advisers operate under. It will no longer be possible for ongoing fee arrangements to exist where the client is not engaged with his or her adviser.

3. Ban on superannuation advice fees

Australians’ retirement nest egg is worth nearly $3 trillion. As expected with such a vast sum of money involved, the potential for conflicts of interest is obvious. The Royal Commission heard evidence, for instance, that superannuation funds often permit members to pay for financial advice out of their super accounts. The member might, however, be seeking advice much broader than the subject of his or her superannuation assets alone.

Commissioner Hayne noted that the sole purpose of superannuation is to provide for retirement income. He put superannuation trustees on notice that where advice fees are deducted from member accounts that advice must be limited to the superannuation itself.

However, he went further in the case of the MySuper default accounts. “It’s difficult to imagine circumstances in which a member would require financial advice about their MySuper account,” he said, and recommendation 3.2 banned any advice fees being deducted from MySuper accounts. The Commissioner further clarified with recommendation 3.3 that any advice fees deducted from a superannuation account will need to conform with the new rules about ongoing fees, captured under recommendation 2.1.

4. The end of grandfathered commissions

This final change is better understood and publicised than the three above, but it is worth highlighting given its significance.

The 2013 FoFA reforms were intended to improve trust in the financial services industry. Unfortunately, extensive lobbying by deep-pocketed stakeholders watered down the effect of many of its key initiatives. FoFA more accurately stands for the ‘Failure of Financial Advice’, described one writer recently.

A good example was the notion to ban ‘conflicted remuneration’. The government conceded a raft of exceptions so that eventually the definition of conflicted remuneration had more holes than a sieve. Trailing commissions in place before FoFA commenced were one of those holes. Advisers were allowed to continue receiving unearned income that ASIC says accounted for nearly one-third of their total income, an exception known as ‘grandfathered commissions’.

Hayne’s recommendation 2.4 proposed to end the grandfathered commissions and legislation introduced in August 2019 to ban grandfathered commissions passed through the House of Representatives. At time of writing, it is in the Senate where no significant opposition is expected.

Good news for both consumers and advisers

For years now, ASIC has conducted surveillance activities consistently concluding there is an unshakeable connection between poor advice and conflicts of interest.

The good news for consumers is that genuinely independent advice will become a lot more common than it is today. For advisers, there is a real opportunity to shrug off the shackles of a gravy train culture and enjoy the respect and trust that comes with being a member of a profession.


Daniel Brammall is President of the Profession of Independent Financial Advisers. This article is general information based on an understanding of proposed legislation.


August 12, 2021

It is clear that many of these comments are based on media stories and not based on an understanding of facts.

Hayne struggled with some of the most fundamental and problematic issues and as a consequence didn't address the cause of most of the problems, vertical integration.

So Gary M, you are not referred to in my first line as this was one of the few posts that was correct.

September 23, 2019

Surely financial advisers weren't blind to these "deep seated issues" of conflict of interest. Was it too lucrative or too comfortable for them to put a stake in the ground and say "that's enough" and become independent?

September 19, 2019

I think the term "independent" is at times used to infer that the advice will be better, and non "independent advisers" are driven by greedy commissions or other conflicted remuneration. Why is the advice (I mean the strategy) conflicted if the planner gives excellent strategic advice and then keeps the clients in their existing industry funds. How is that advice worse than that being given by those you nail the "independent" sign on the door. That advice is not conflicted but because the AFSL may be owned by a bank it is? - Well yes it is because the bank manufactures a product, even if it wasn't used. The nasty flip side is you have some "independent" advisers who sell their own products via SMSF admin or MDA's or their own investments, which they receive income from. How is that any any more independent then selling a bank owned fund in which you receive nothing - no commissions, no incentives. It's not. So hold on tight because we will see some big name financial planning firms come to grief once ASIC have finished gutting the big fish. Not naming any names...

September 20, 2019

Agree. There are so many financial planners calling themselves independent when they have a vested interest in the ‘advice’ they’re giving.

September 22, 2019

Unfortunately the conflicted environment that the non-independent advisers operated in and far too many took advantage of, as the Royal Commission showed, ruins it for those that may provide the excellent strategic advice that you state. As a result, that excellent strategic advice will now need to operate with the far cleaner environment of being Independent.
Comparing the ideal of non-independent with the worst of the independent doesn't hold any water given the Royal Commission hearings.

September 19, 2019

I went to a financial planner for advice about an inheritance. The 'adviser' paraded the usual suspects in front of me but I had seen these guys on the ABC so went to them to get a second opinion -- there were only a few at that time. They're growing but far too slow.

David R
September 19, 2019

This was inevitable. When the banks finally realised the party was over and headed for the door it was only a matter of time. It's a shame financial planners are being made to be trustworthy rather than stepping up to the plate off their own bat.

Gary M
September 19, 2019

Talk about major changes - an annual opt-in after being told the fees, limits to super advice fees, independence ... now I understand better why the banks are exiting most of their advice businesses.


Leave a Comment:



Four things advisers can do to manage conflicts

Royal Commission 2: Goodbye grandfathering, hello fee-for-service

The saga of FoFA (so far) - a reprise from 2014


Most viewed in recent weeks

Unexpected results in our retirement income survey

Who knew? With some surprise results, the Government is on unexpected firm ground in asking people to draw on all their assets in retirement, although the comments show what feisty and informed readers we have.

Three all-time best tables for every adviser and investor

It's a remarkable statistic. In any year since 1875, if you had invested in the Australian stock index, turned away and come back eight years later, your average return would be 120% with no negative periods.

The looming excess of housing and why prices will fall

Never stand between Australian households and an uncapped government programme with $3 billion in ‘free money’ to build or renovate their homes. But excess supply is coming with an absence of net migration.

Five stocks that have worked well in our portfolios

Picking macro trends is difficult. What may seem logical and compelling one minute may completely change a few months later. There are better rewards from focussing on identifying the best companies at good prices.

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

Six COVID opportunist stocks prospering in adversity

Some high-quality companies have emerged even stronger since the onset of COVID and are well placed for outperformance. We call these the ‘COVID Opportunists’ as they are now dominating their specific sectors.

Latest Updates


10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?


Sean Fenton on marching to your own investment tune

Is it more difficult to find stocks to short in a rising market? What impact has central bank dominance had over stock selection? How do you combine income and growth in a portfolio? Where are the opportunities?


D’oh! DDO rules turn some funds into a punching bag

The Design and Distribution Obligations (DDO) come into effect in two weeks. They will change the way banks promote products, force some small funds to close to new members and push issues into the listed space.


Dividends, disruption and star performers in FY21 wrap

Company results in FY21 were generally good with some standout results from those thriving in tough conditions. We highlight the companies that delivered some of the best results and our future  expectations.

Fixed interest

Coles no longer happy with the status quo

It used to be Down, Down for prices but the new status quo is Down Down for emissions. Until now, the realm of ESG has been mainly fund managers as 'responsible investors', but companies are now pushing credentials.

Investment strategies

Seven factors driving growth in Managed Accounts

As Managed Accounts surge through $100 billion for the first time, the line between retail, wholesale and institutional capabilities and portfolios continues to blur. Lower costs help with best interest duties.


Reader Survey: home values in age pension asset test

Read our article on the family home in the age pension test, with the RBA Governor putting the onus on social security to address house prices and the OECD calling out wealthy pensioners. What is your view?



© 2021 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.

Website Development by Master Publisher.