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.


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

The risk-return tradeoff: What’s the right asset mix for a 5% return?

Conservative investors are forced to choose between protecting capital and accepting lower income while drawing down capital to maintain living standards or taking additional risk. How can you strike a balance?

How long will my retirement savings last?

Many self-funded retirees will outlive their savings as most men and women now aged 65 will survive at least another 20 years. Compare your spending with how much you earn to see how long your money will last.

Buffett's favourite indicator versus all-in equities

Peter Thornhill shows how his personal portfolio has thrived under an 'all-in equities' strategy, but Warren Buffett's favourite valuation indicator says stock markets are priced at their most extreme ever.

In fact, most people have no super when they die

Contrary to the popular belief supported by the 'fact base' of the Retirement Income Review, four in every five Australians aged 60 and over have no super in the period up to four years before their death.

Five timeless lessons from a life in investing

40 years of investing is distilled into five crucial lessons. An overall theme is to embrace uncertainty to make an impact on how much you earn, how much you spend, how much you save and how much risk you take.

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 403

Most Australians hold their superannuation in a balanced fund, often 60% growth/40% defensive or 70%/30%. Lifecycle funds are also popular, where the amount in defensive assets increases with age. Employees who are not engaged with their super (and that's most people when they start full-time work) simply tick a box for the default fund selected on their behalf by their employer. Are these funds still appropriate?

  • 15 April 2021

Latest Updates


Whoyagonnacall? 10 unspoken risks buying off-the-plan

All new apartment buildings have defects, and inexperienced owners assume someone else will fix them. But developers and builders will not volunteer to spend time and money unless someone fights them. Part 1


Super changes, the Budget and 2021 versus 2022

Josh Frydenberg's third budget contained changes to superannuation and other rules but their effective date is expected to be 1 July 2022. Take care not to confuse them with changes due on 1 July 2021.


Why don't higher prices translate into inflation? Blame hedonism

Why are prices rising but not the CPI? When we measure inflation, we aren’t measuring raw price changes, we’re measuring the pleasure-adjusted or utility-adjusted price changes, and we use it incorrectly.


Should investors brace for uncomfortably high inflation?

The global recession came quickly and deeply but it has given way to a strong rebound. What are the lessons for investors, how should a portfolio change and what role will inflation play?

Risk management

Revealed: Madoff so close to embezzling Australian investors

We are publishing this anonymously knowing it comes from an impeccable source. Bernie Madoff’s fund was almost distributed to retail Australian investors a year before the largest-ever hedge fund fraud was exposed.

Exchange traded products

How long can your LICs continue to pay dividends?

Some LICs have recently paid out more in dividends than their net profit as they have the ability to tap their retained profits and reserves. Others reduced dividends to ease the burden on cashflow and balance sheets.

SMSF strategies

How SMSF contribution reserving can use the higher caps

With the increase in the concessional cap to $27,500 on 1 July 2021, a contribution reserving strategy could allow a member to make and claim deductions for personal contributions of up to $52,500 this year.



© 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.