Perth’s new apartment market recorded its strongest quarter of sales since Q4 2021, with 412 apartments sold in Q1 2026 and a record quarterly sold value of $537 million, according to Urbis’ latest Apartment Essentials results.

Urbis said the March quarter result reflects strong, highly product‑specific demand across both ends of the market, from more attainable projects delivering at scale, through to premium stock being absorbed by equity‑rich downsizers.&nbsp;

David Cresp, Partner at Urbis, said the key story in Perth is not demand, it is the market’s ability to convert demand into delivered housing.&nbsp;

“This is the strongest sales quarter since Q4 2021, and it reinforces that demand in Perth is real and it’s local,” David Cresp said. “But the task now is delivery, turning that demand into projects that can actually be built and completed.”&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=110291 project_image_fid=302785]

<h2>Affordable product leads, premium demand remains resilient</h2>

Sales in Q1 were led by more affordable projects, with The Boulevard (SKS Group) recording 115 sales in the quarter, the presentation noting this is only the second time a single project has surpassed 100 quarterly sales. The project was able to offer more affordable housing product right next to a train station.&nbsp;

Palmyra West (Finbar) also delivered strong results with 28 sales in Q1, following 84 sales in Q4, with an average price of under $800,000, underscoring depth of demand for well‑located, attainable new stock.&nbsp;

At the premium end, Urbis said downsizer demand is continuing, with the results highlighting Romeo (Applecross, Finbar) recording 75 sales and reaching almost 50% sold in one quarter.

Jual (Shenton Park, Celsius Property) also posted a strong quarter with 28 sales, reaching 39% sold in one quarter.

Urbis noted that Perth apartment demand is not speculative, not investor‑led, and not uniform, describing it as localised, often equity‑driven and highly product‑specific, a pattern reflected in the polarisation between strong “attainable” performers and premium downsizer product.&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=148957 project_image_fid=364102]

<h2>Prices underpinned by costs, and the delivery risk is growing</h2>

Urbis said pricing pressure is cost not demand‑driven: construction costs and delivery risk are now a central constraint, with the results noting build costs remain elevated and volatile, and that energy, fuel and labour uncertainty weigh on feasibility.

David Cresp said a growing challenge for private Build‑to‑Sell developers is simply securing a builder in the current environment.

“Developers are really feeling the pressure from a building market that was operating at capacity and securing a builder is challenging,” David Cresp said, adding that even where a builder can be secured, “trying to get to the price that makes the development financially viable is incredibly challenging in the current market.”&nbsp;

Urbis’ broader WA commentary also notes that industry remains at or above capacity with lot and housing creation, and that many builders are limiting new sales to manage stretched workforces and fixed‑price contract pressures, conditions that flow directly into apartment feasibility and delivery timing.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=108869 project_image_fid=317905]

<h2>Supply: improving later, but still constrained, and Perth lags eastern benchmarks</h2>

While near‑term supply remains constrained, Urbis’ forecast shows completions lifting “Supply is forecast to be back above 1,500 apartments per annum for the first time since 2019”, with 1,775 completions forecast for 2026, and volumes remaining above that level over the following years.&nbsp;

Looking further ahead, completions are forecast to reach 2,500 in 2028, with the report noting 32% of that total is social/affordable, reflecting the role of government‑supported delivery in rebuilding the pipeline.&nbsp;

However, Urbis said Perth remains behind comparable markets on pipeline scale. In a national comparison of projects under construction, the report shows under construction Perth Build‑to‑Sell (BTS) at 3,446 apartments versus the Gold Coast at 7,922. Mr Cresp said “The challenge for Perth is how to we grow the delivery pipeline”.

Urbis’ conclusion is that Perth’s market is increasingly defined by product discipline and delivery certainty, with the research identifying “delivery certainty is key” and calling out builder risk and procurement models as core success factors, alongside “timing and staging”.&nbsp;

Joel Robinson

Perth apartment sales hit strongest pace since late 2021 as builder capacity tightens

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/sammut-developments">Sammut Group</a> has secured development approval for its latest Brisbane apartment project, marking the Sydney developer’s next step in expanding its Queensland pipeline following the success of its debut Gold Coast development, Coast.

The approved project at <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/44-glen-road-toowong-qld-4066">44 Glen Road, </a><a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developments/toowong-qld-4066">Toowong</a> will deliver a 15-storey riverfront apartment building with 42 residences, significantly increasing the scale of the site’s previous approval for a smaller luxury scheme. Designed by Bureau^proberts, the development will comprise a mix of predominantly four-bedroom and two-bedroom apartments positioned to maximise Brisbane River and city views.

Sammut Director Julian Sammut said the group had been actively searching Brisbane for several years before identifying Toowong as the right fit.

“Brisbane was the right step for Sammut,” Sammut said.

“With the success of Coast we thought we should definitely look to do more in Queensland alone. We then pushed up to look at Brisbane. We've been looking for I'd say two to three years actually and it was hard to find the right location.”

<img alt="Sammut makes Brisbane apartment play" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/f_auto,c_limit,w_1440,q_75/https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/field/image/Screenshot%202025-12-23%20at%203.27.14%E2%80%AFPM.png?VersionId=dYAVIL7qdcGA8ojvkslSrLjczXFejSSx" />

Sammut said suburbs including New Farm and Teneriffe were considered before the group ultimately focused on Toowong due to its strong downsizer demographic and limited supply of developable riverfront land.

The site was acquired off-market after what Sammut described as a lengthy negotiation and planning process, with the developer pursuing an uplift to the original approval.

“We are DA approved now which is very exciting,” Sammut said.

“We've had our change approval come through and we've obviously doubled the height, 15 storeys plus rooftop. We've got 42 amazing apartments that are going to be coming to market soon.”

<img alt="Sammut makes Brisbane apartment play" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,dpr_2.0,q_auto:good/https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202025-12-23%20at%203.27.26%E2%80%AFPM.png?VersionId=ohkRkY0dIZlqdfME2EZePsCQavRiBadE" />

Bureau^proberts said the design responds to Toowong’s evolving urban character, balancing contemporary apartment living with the area’s established residential identity.

“A place where traditional Queensland living has taken place for centuries; Toowong is seeing a shift of contemporary influence, commercial and retail hubs mixed with well-considered residential offerings – all the while maintaining its character and charm,” the architect noted in planning documents submitted to Brisbane City Council.

The architecture practice said the project’s form was shaped by its riverfront setting, flood considerations, neighbouring building scales, and view corridors.

“They said the mix of four and two-bedroom apartments capture the ‘fundamental qualities of Queenslander living,’ translated into the context of a contemporary subtropical building.”

The development sits just off Coronation Drive within walking distance of Toowong’s retail precinct and the upgraded Regatta ferry terminal, while also benefiting from proximity to the incoming green bridge connection to West End. Sammut said the accessibility and amenity offering were central to the site’s appeal.

The approval adds to growing residential activity along the Toowong riverfront, joining nearby projects including Consolidated Properties’ Monarch Residences and Spyre Group’s ARC Residences.

Sammut secures approval for debut Brisbane apartment development in Toowong

Developer Lanevick is heading back into Sydney’s apartment market after focusing more heavily on the luxury townhouse and terrace sector in recent years.

Lanevick, founded and directed by Steve Maroun, is expecting to receive approval in the coming months for a new apartment development in Gladesville, with the aim to launch it to the market later this year.

The 51-apartment project, designed by Studio Johnston, will comprise a mix of one-, two-, and three-bedroom apartments positioned toward the Hunters Hill downsizer market.

“Traditionally it’s been difficult for people in that market to downsize because there just hasn’t been the right product available,” Maroun said.

“We’re targeting buyers who might have 30 to 40 per cent of their house value sitting in the bank after downsizing.

“They still want good spacious entertaining areas, they still want quality design, but they also want flexibility and the ability to enjoy life a bit more after working hard for a long time.”

The project sits near Boronia Park and within close proximity to the Parramatta River foreshore, an area Maroun says offers more of a Hunters Hill lifestyle than a traditional apartment precinct.

“From a lifestyle perspective, it’s really more Hunters Hill than Gladesville,” Maroun said. “You’re close to the foreshore, close to parklands, and still connected back into the village precinct.”

From level four and above, apartments will capture water views&nbsp;toward Sydney Harbour. Communal amenity will include rooftop entertaining areas, wellness spaces, and a gym tailored toward owner-occupier buyers.

“We’ve really designed these apartments around that buyer coming from the Hunters Hill LGA and what they’re actually looking for in their next chapter.”

The proposed development has also been designed to respond to the changing character of the broader Gladesville town centre, where a growing number of mixed-use and residential proposals are expected to emerge over the coming years.

“Gladesville presented a rare opportunity to deliver a genuinely design-led residential project within an evolving lifestyle precinct, just moments from the growing Gladesville town centre, and we’ve approached the project with a strong focus on architecture, liveability and long-term community value,” Maroun said.

Maroun said Lanevick saw a first-mover advantage within the precinct as planning controls continue to evolve to accommodate greater housing density.

“We think there’s a real opportunity there that hasn’t really been serviced properly yet,” he said.

“There’s going to be a broader evolution of the whole Gladesville village precinct over time, particularly with more activation and mixed-use outcomes.”

The Venus Street proposal will include a commercial and retail component at ground level designed to contribute to that evolving streetscape activation.

“A big part of the thinking was how do you activate that area properly and create more vibrancy and amenity, which is what Hunters Hill has been looking for,” Maroun said.

Lanevick’s focus since 2020 has largely been on smaller-scale luxury townhouse and terrace developments. The developer recently completed Royale Randwick, also designed by Studio Johnston, where prices reached $3.65 million. The project was featured in the UDIA NSW 2026 Professional Development Prospectus and was also named a finalist for Development of the Year.

&nbsp;

Lanevick to cater for Hunters Hill downsizers with new Gladesville apartment development

Property developer One Living, backed by former Macquarie banker turned investment manager Chris Green’s investment firm, has unveiled plans to bring more institutional capital into housing to help address the national supply crisis.

The New York-based investor has focused his firm, GreenPoint Partners, on addressing the supply shortage hitting middle market housing in Australia.

It is backing the new One Living business to develop more than 1000 units along the eastern seaboard. The new firm is starting with a development on Mona Vale Road, on the border of Mona Vale and Pymble, in Sydney’s Northern Beaches, with around 140 apartments planned. They are eyeing off more sites across the city.

With cost pressures rising in the industry, One Living’s model is to be a vertically integrated developer-builder, so it can respond directly to the housing gap by removing the cost inefficiencies embedded in traditional residential delivery.

“We are building a platform designed to operate at scale and starting in a market where there’s a clear need for quality, attainable housing,” One Living joint managing director Joseph Scuderi said.

“It’s that missing middle – it’s that attainable end of housing… that’s what most Australians invest into and what Australians can actually afford.”

<img alt="Mona Vale" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="798dfa93-4941-4db6-a696-31e9dc18e81c" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-05-28%20at%202.31.50%E2%80%AFPM.png?VersionId=mKBqi5C_DmeiXS.AtJkcR8LQIxqCqmFi" />

GreenPoint Partners brings years of experience assembling and scaling real estate operating businesses across major markets. And Green sees a big opportunity in Australia.

“For its size, sophistication and importance to the community, Australia’s living sector has remained largely under-institutionalised, which represents significant opportunity,” Green said. “GreenPoint identified that gap, assembled the right team, and is backing One Living to build a platform that is aligned to market needs.”

Green said being a builder-developer would give the company the capacity and flexibility it required to deliver reasonably-priced homes.

“We want it to be at that attainable level; not super high end luxury but at that attainable level,” he said.

<img alt="Mona Vale" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="74a5344a-4b26-4d4a-ada3-056b1220be77" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-05-28%20at%202.32.15%E2%80%AFPM.png?VersionId=vY8hXHO4reBMdO8ZXMWCNtGZJofUPQ3j" />

&nbsp;

One Living will undertake a component of affordable housing in its schemes, which it will own and operate, and it could also run build-to-rent on some sites.

Green praised local policy settings.

“The NSW government is being very supportive, strategic and pragmatic in terms of how do we generate more supply of housing,” he said. “We think it’s actually positive for development and the bit that’s been lacking at that attainable level is that it’s lots of relatively small private developers, whereas we want to create an institutional platform.”

One Living is also&nbsp;looking at high-density projects and could take on more institutional funding in the future.

“The way we will be able to achieve economies of scale is through size,” Green added.

One Living enters Sydney's new apartment market with Northern Beaches site acquisition

It's been several years since there's been an opportunity to buy a brand new townhome in Melbourne's coastal suburb of Mordialloc. Even apartment developments in recent times have been few and far between in the area.

Local developer LDS Property identified the gap in new housing, securing a site on White Street, directly opposite&nbsp;Woodlands Golf Club Mordialloc. They've recently launched&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-townhouses/wm-residences-mordialloc-102-white-street-mordialloc-vic-3195">WM Residences</a>, just 13 townhouses which they have already started building.

Projects by Buxton Director Heath Thompson, who is selling WM Residences, says the townhouses x that perfect middle ground be

"Mordialloc residents have had limited options to downsize within the suburb, often forcing them to look elsewhere despite long-standing ties to the area," Thompson says.

"With very little comparable new supply coming to market, projects like WM Residences are well placed, particularly as buyers look to capitalise on current conditions amid constrained supply."

[smartcode_project:default project_id=134646 project_image_fid=6109]

The development, designed by regarded architecture firm&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/ewert-leaf">Ewert Leaf</a>,&nbsp;adopts a deliberately restrained architectural approach, focusing on simplicity, durability and liveability rather than overt design gestures.

The boutique scale is central to the offering. With only 13 three-bedroom residences, each home is configured to prioritise functional layouts and everyday use, supported by private terraces and secure two-car garages.

Ewert Leaf’s design response leans into a calm, neutral material palette. Interiors are defined by oak flooring, white walls and soft finishes, creating a consistent and understated backdrop. The approach avoids trend-driven detailing in favour of longevity, with an emphasis on natural light and spatial clarity.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=134646 project_image_fid=6110]

Beyond aesthetics, the homes are designed to meet contemporary performance expectations. Each residence targets a minimum 6-star energy rating, incorporating double glazing, comprehensive insulation and all-electric Bosch appliances.

The project’s location supports a walkable coastal lifestyle, sitting within close proximity to Mordialloc’s foreshore, Main Street retail strip and the train station. Local cafés and dining venues, including Suburbia Deli and Hendriks Café, are within a short walk, reinforcing the area’s established neighbourhood character.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=134646 project_image_fid=6116]

While <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developments/mordialloc-vic-3195">Mordialloc</a> is often defined by its beach and pier, the project taps into other areas of day to day living, offering easy access to local food, casual dining and transport, rather than positioning itself purely as a lifestyle retreat.

WM Residences reflects a continued trend across Melbourne’s coastal suburbs towards smaller-scale, design-led townhouse developments, particularly on infill sites where proximity to amenity is already established.

With construction commenced prior to its market entry, the project aligns with a growing preference among buyers for developments with visible progress and defined delivery timeframes.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=134646]

WM Residences fills gap in Mordialloc townhouse market

Financial Advice

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The sharp rise and subsequent fall in Bitcoin’s value places it among the greatest market bubbles in history. It has outpaced the 17th-century tulip mania, the South Sea bubble of 1720, and the more recent Japanese asset price and dot-com bubbles.
<iframe style="border: none;" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/286/e04648d7cf1a157e88017b3e5c2c5557ae88bcfc/site/index.html" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="300"></iframe>
The rapid price rise garnered attention from an increasing number of academics and investment advisers. Some have suggested that Bitcoin improves portfolio performance and can even be used as a potential “safe haven” asset in place of gold.
Our work finds that much of this research is flawed and overlooks some important attributes that any investor should consider before allocating funds to such a speculative investment.
This is particularly relevant if investing in Bitcoin is rationalised as a prospective safe haven in times of market turmoil.
Hard to value
The first attribute investors consider is how to value Bitcoin. Typically, assets are valued based on the cash flows they produce. Bitcoin lacks this property.
This leads to ongoing debate as to the true value of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Some, such as the Winklevoss twins and other Bitcoin entrepreneurs, believe the price will soar far higher. Others, including Nobel prize winner Eugene Fama and esteemed investor Warren Buffett, believe the real value is closer to zero. Another Nobel winner, Robert Shiller, suggests the correct answer is “ambiguous”.
There is even wide variation in price across the various Bitcoin exchanges. This is common in fragmented markets and makes it difficult for an investor to find the best market price at any point in time – a process called price discovery.
<iframe style="width: 0; min-width: 100% !important;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/W3evi/1/" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" width="100%" height="500"></iframe>
High price volatility
Bitcoin prices also have a high level of variation (volatility) when compared to other possible investments including bonds, stocks and gold. Even tech stocks such as Twitter, which are considered relatively volatile, are found to have less price variation. This adds to the difficulty investors face when trying to value Bitcoin and any portfolios that contain it.
This is of particular concern given the large daily losses that Bitcoin has experienced in its relatively short life. The largest one-day decline experienced by the popular S&amp;P500 index since 2011 is 4.2%. Bitcoin has had nearly 200 days that were worse (and over 60 days worse than the biggest decline in the gold price of 10.2%).
Put another way, Bitcoin has had 200 days worse than the worst day on the stock market. This hardly seems like an enticing investment for most.
<iframe style="width: 0; min-width: 100% !important;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/80wdK/2/" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" width="100%" height="562"></iframe>
Low liquidity
Investors should also consider the ease with which they are able to buy and sell any assets in which they invest. One method used to measure this liquidity attribute is the bid-ask spread – the difference in the price at which one is able to buy and sell the asset.
More liquid assets have a narrow bid-ask spread. Bitcoin’s bid-ask spread varies from one exchange to another, but in general it is much larger than for other assets.
<iframe style="width: 0; min-width: 100% !important;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/brgfk/1/" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" width="100%" height="700"></iframe>
While bid-ask spreads provide one measure of implicit trading costs, investors also consider the explicit transaction fees they are charged when trading. Transaction fees for trading traditional investments are typically well known and have trended down over time.
While Bitcoin fees have recently declined, they have proven to be highly variable, ranging from over $30 to under $1. The time taken to process a transaction can also be greater than 78 minutes. This is much longer than for stocks or bonds and creates another layer of uncertainty for investors.
Only for the most risk-loving
Bitcoin is harder to value, more volatile, less liquid, and costlier to transact than other assets in normal market conditions. Potential investors should be wary and carefully consider whether such highly speculative assets are appropriate additions to any portfolio.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/99134/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">Given safe havens are typically in demand during financial crisis, when markets are more volatile and less liquid, it is highly unlikely that Bitcoin is even worth considering as a safe-haven asset.
Lee Smales, Associate Professor, Finance, University of Western Australia
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/think-carefully-before-buying-bitcoin-and-dont-buy-the-safe-haven-claims-99134" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Think carefully before buying Bitcoin – and don't buy the 'safe haven' claims: Lee Smales

<html><body>
The Dover Financial Group is set to close leaving the $4 billion dollars of investor funds from around 30,000 clients in the lurch.
It follows news that Dover Financial Group's founder, Terry McMaster has entered the final stages of its agreement with the corporate regulator, Australian Securities and Investments Commission following his recent royal commission appearance that ended in him requiring hospitalisation.
The regulator intends stripping the firm of its operating licence.
The ABC reported McMaster's email announcement to his staff on Friday, where Mr McMaster stated that ASIC, required the firm to "cancel its AFSL [Australian Financial Services Licence] by 6 July 2018" and "terminate the appointment of its authorised representatives". 
 Advisers have to cease giving new advice immediately and stop servicing the clients completely by the first week of July.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has confirmed that its inquiries into the firm were ongoing.
Fairfax Media reported McMaster had sought until the end of the year to wind down his business but that ASIC had told him that his time was up.
The 400 advisers will need to find another licence-holder to work under.
In the period to 1 April 2018 Dover incorporated a document known as the Dover Client Protection Policy into its financial services guides and its statements of advice.
On 22 March 2018 Dover was notified by ASIC that it had reviewed the Dover Client Protection Policy and believed it contained certain provisions which were unlawful and void.
The Dover website noted it does not know of any client adversely effected by those provisions.
"In good faith Dover cooperated with ASIC and immediately withdrew the Dover Client Protection Policy and replaced it with the Dover Client Information Policy, with retrospective effect, and undertook to not rely on the relevant provisions.
"Dover also wrote to each client potentially affected by those provisions."
<div class="ymInT"> </div>
</body></html>

Dover Financial Group begins ASIC-forced shutdown

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
A Productivity Commission report analysing competition in the financial sector has pointed out that our finance regulators have become enablers of an industry that is an impediment to our economic competitiveness and exploitative of their most loyal customers.
It proves the need for a board to oversee the conduct of our financial regulators, policing the bodies that are supposed to be keeping our financial system in check.
It could not have come at a worse time for our big four banks. Perennially pilloried for their rampant market misconduct (fraudulently manipulating benchmark interest rates) and their equally rampant abuse of upwards of hundreds of thousands of consumers across every one of their retail operations at one stage or another – financial advice, life insurance and credit card insurance, just to name a few.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) most recently launched a bank-bill swap rate manipulation case against the Commonwealth Bank, but only across a very narrow range of infringements. The bulk of the infringements can’t be prosecuted because ASIC has dithered for so long, the statute of limitations has run out, and the alleged crimes have proscribed.
And what of our other financial regulator - the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA)? The Productivity Commission reckons that APRA’s ham-fisted use of macro-prudential tools, usually used to reduce risk in our financial system, has benefited the big four banks to the tune of A$1 billion.
APRA has been criticised for pursuing stability in a manner that has killed competition, hurt consumers, and starved small businesses of life-giving capital. The dominance by a few banks, whose profits are based on runaway property prices, is its own systemic threat.
The result is that small banks are squeezed out, big banks raking in higher rates, and investors offsetting higher rates against their taxes and so costing the Australian Taxation Office an estimated A$500 million in deductions. As the old saying goes, when your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
Who will regulate the regulators?
So what to do about ASIC and APRA? Back in 2014, the Financial System Inquiry recommended a board of oversight – a regulator for the regulators – to ensure that the regulators discharge their mandates.
So, for example, to ensure that ASIC acts like a cop, not a co-op; that APRA acts with foresight and finesse, as opposed to damaging competition. APRA and ASIC pushed back at the time, and the Abbott government rejected the recommendation.
Now to add impetus to the Financial System Inquiry recommendation, the Productivity Commission says there is a lack of transparency and accountability exhibited by our regulators. Add to that the implications regarding regulator’s efficacy that comes with the establishment of the Financial Services Royal Commission. The public deserves better than this.
A regulator for the regulators – a Financial Regulator Assessment Board – would conduct ex post analyses of how regulators had discharged their mandates, evaluate their policies and the efficacy of their policy tools. It would be a sober second thought, and a crucial mechanism of double redundancy – to pick up on crucial elements that the regulator may have overlooked.
The idea has form. The British have created something similar, called a Financial Policy Committee, this body’s aim is to review the British regulators, while keeping a look-out for where the next “bombshell” may come from.
That development in turn builds on the work of James Barth, Gerard Caprio and Ross Levine whose research indicates that regulators simply cannot be trusted to perform these crucial functions as the guardians of finance, without oversight. The researchers call their proposed board of oversight the “Sentinel”, and point out that no industry is more adept and more practised at suborning the guardians of finance than banks and insurers. Sound familiar?
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/91396/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">Australia’s financial system is increasingly governed by a lawless financial sector, presided over by regulators that are at best misguided, and at worst captured. A board of oversight is the least we can do.
Andrew Schmulow, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Western Australia
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-financial-regulators-need-policing-91396" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Australia's financial regulators need policing: Andrew Schmulow

<html><body>
An Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) review of financial advice provided by the five biggest vertically integrated financial institutions has identified areas where improvements are needed to the management of conflicts of interest.
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2018/1/25/AISC%203.jpg" alt="">
The review looked at the products that ANZ, CBA, NAB, Westpac and AMP financial advice licensees were recommending and at the quality of the advice provided on in-house products.
The review was part of a broader set of regulatory reviews of the wealth management and financial advice businesses of the largest banking and financial services institutions as part of ASIC's Wealth Management Project.
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2018/1/25/ASIA%204.jpg" alt="">
The review found that, overall, 79% of the financial products on the firms' approved products lists (APL) were external products and 21% were internal or 'in-house' products. However, 68% of clients’ funds were invested in in-house products.
The split between internal and external product sales varied across different licensees and across different types of financial products. For example, it was more pronounced for platforms compared to direct investments. However, in most cases there was a clear weighting in the products recommended by advisers towards in-house products.
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2018/1/25/ASIC%205.jpg" alt="">
ASIC noted that vertical integration can provide economies of scale and other benefits to both the customer and the financial institution. Consumers might choose advice from large vertically integrated firms because they seek that firm's products due to factors such as convenience and access, and recommendations of 'in-house' products may be appropriate. Nonetheless, conflicts of interest are inherent in vertically integrated firms, and these firms still need to properly manage conflicts of interest in their advisory arms and ensure good quality advice.
ASIC will consult with the financial advice industry (and other relevant groups) on a proposal to introduce more transparent public reporting on approved product lists, including where client funds are invested, for advice licensees that are part of a vertically integrated business. ASIC noted that any such requirement is likely to cover vertically integrated firms beyond those included in this review. The introduction of reporting requirements would improve transparency around management of the conflicts of interests that are inherent in these businesses.
ASIC also examined a sample of files to test whether advice to switch to in-house products satisfied the 'best interests' requirements. ASIC found that in 75% of the advice files reviewed the advisers did not demonstrate compliance with the duty to act in the best interests of their clients. Further, 10% of the advice reviewed was likely to leave the customer in a significantly worse financial position. ASIC will ensure that appropriate customer remediation takes place.
Acting ASIC Chair Peter Kell said that ASIC is already working with the major financial institutions to address the issues that have been identified in the report on quality of advice and management of conflicts of interest.
'There is ongoing work focusing on remediation where advice-related failures have led to poor customer outcomes, and the results of this review will feed into that work,' said Mr Kell.
ASIC is already working with the institutions to improve compliance and advice quality through action such as:
<ul>
<li>improvements to monitoring and supervision processes for financial advisers; and</li>
<li>improvements to adviser recruitment processes and checks.</li>
</ul>
ASIC will continue to ban advisers with serious compliance failings.
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2018/1/25/AISC%207.png" alt="">
ASIC highlighted that the findings from this review should be carefully examined by other vertically integrated firms. 'While this review focused on five major financial services firms, the lessons should be considered by all vertically integrated firms in the financial services sector.'
</body></html>

ASIC reports on how large financial institutions manage conflicts of interest

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
It’s pretty common nowadays to see the likes of the Reserve Bank of Australia or the Australian Bureau of Statistics issue warnings about the size of Australian household debt. The reason is that the consequences of poor financial decisions often reach far wider than an individual or family.
The global financial crisis showed us how rapidly financial contagion can spread - one person’s debt is another person’s asset, so when the debt is written off so is the asset. However, there has been little improvement in financial literacy in the wake of the financial crisis, the lack of which was one of the underlying causes.
For instance, surveys just prior to the global financial crisis revealed that many Americans taking out home loans either did not read their loan documents or did not understand them. This meant that, in many cases, they did not understand that they were signing teaser loans where the interest rate starts out very low but increases after a few years.
This lack of financial literacy combined with predatory lending caused the subprime loan crisis, the precursor to the full blown financial crisis.
What is financial literacy?
Financial literacy refers to the ability to make sound financial decisions based on knowledge, skills and attitudes, taking into account personal circumstances.
Low financial literacy is particularly concerning in home loans. In an alarming parallel to the United States before the financial crisis, roughly one third of interest-only mortgagees do not understand that their repayments make no inroads into their debt, and that their interest rates will jump considerably after the interest-only period of the loan has expired.
But it isn’t just that low financial literacy increases risk. It is also important for achieving a productive economy. Economic efficiency requires borrowers to not only have good information but to understand it. This allows them to weigh up the costs of borrowing with the benefits that they expect to receive.
If the information is distorted, either deliberately by lenders or through the misunderstanding of borrowers, they will miscalculate the benefits and capital in the economy will be misallocated. Economists call this market failure, a lot of which occurred in the housing market in the United States before the global financial crisis.
Financial literacy isn’t improving
Evidence suggests that financial literacy has not improved since the global financial crisis, and may have gotten worse.
A survey of adult financial literacy in Australia found that in 2014 the number of people who could actually recognise an investment was “too good to be true” - for example a financial asset promising to pay a return much higher than the going return on similar assets and for no greater risk - had actually declined, to 50% from 53% just three years earlier.
The survey also found that those who recognised that good investments (something with relatively low risk) may fluctuate in value fell to 67% from 74%.
But financial literacy education must also go hand in hand with general literacy and numeracy. The Productivity Commission found that 14% of the adult population had relatively low literacy skills in 2011-12. This is defined as being able to, at best, locate basic information from simple texts but being unable to evaluate truth claims or arguments.
The report also found 22% of the population had low numeracy skills, meaning that they can count, add and subtract and do other basic arithmetic. But they cannot understand statistical ideas, mathematical formula or analyse data.
In other words, a significant proportion of the Australian adult population are not equipped to understand the effect of an interest rate increase on their loan repayments, or understand a loan document that includes an interest rate increase after an initial period.
Fixing the problem of financial illiteracy cannot wait until people are in the throes of negotiating home loans and credit cards. And it should definitely take place before Australians resort to pay day loans.
This was the aim of the Australian Government’s National Financial Literacy Strategy, that ends this year. The strategy proposes a number of educational initiatives including embedding financial literacy in the school curriculum, a formal teacher training program, and development of educational resources and tools.
The strategy draws on similar steps that have been adopted by other countries and recommended by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
The problem is that the curriculum is a crowded space. Financial literacy must compete with the latest fashions in school education as well as traditional curriculum content.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/84695/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">Fighting for curriculum space for financial literacy is a political exercise which governments must play hard. For example, by attaching serious funding to the achievement of financial literacy indicators at the school level, and training and certification for teachers. Increasing financial literacy isn’t just in the best interest of individuals, we all benefit from a more literate population.
Ross Guest is professor of economics and national senior teaching fellow at Griffith University.
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/financial-literacy-is-a-public-policy-problem-84695" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

rguest-QX7SdCCSpj

Financial literacy is a public policy problem: Ross Guest

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/67834/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
In it’s latest report, the Australian Securities &amp; Investments Commission (ASIC) found the big four banks sold products to some customers through their adviser network, with a fee for ongoing advice, but the advice was never given. 
None of this came to light until the banks were asked by ASIC to look at adviser compensation, following the introduction of the Future of Financial Advice (FOFA) legislation in 2013. 
No wonder the banks were wary of their practices being investigated. Not only has it come to light that many customers (176,000 at the last count) were being charged for services they were not receiving but, in many cases, the banks didn’t have the data they needed to find out whether customers had been dudded or not. 
And ASIC is pretty sure why such systemic issues emerge at regular intervals, stating:
Cultural factors in the banking and financial services institutions covered by this report may have contributed to the systemic failures we observed. 
The ASIC report details the reason for the cultural failings it observed in the wealth management businesses of the major banks:
Some advice licensees prioritised advice revenue and fee generation over ensuring that they delivered the required services.
ASIC found that the IT systems in wealth management in the major banks were stone-aged at best. The banks appear to have no idea what they don’t know, but are all working to identify how many more customers need to be compensated. 
ASIC also found that some banks failed to keep complete or accurate records to enable compliance to be analysed. And in some cases, authorised representatives had taken customers’ files with them when they left the firms, making it impossible to check whether or not advice was given.
It appears that every time a question is asked of the big banks, another example of bad behaviour is unearthed.
In the recent questioning of bank CEOs by the House Economics Committee, questions were raised with all CEOs about systemic issues. The answers were generally evasive and short on specifics. 
For example, when talking about a different but related, financial planning scandal, Andrew Thorburn, NAB CEO, said:
“We did a review and we had an independent party come and do that review with us, and we concluded and we stand by that, that it was not a systemic issue.”
What Mr Thorburn and other CEOs neglected to mention was that the banks had, as revealed in ASIC’s report, all already been in the middle of deep discussions about so-called “fee-for-services failures” . The regulator wrote:
Of particular concern is that many of the banking and financial services institutions covered by this review publicly state that their core values include being customer focused, “doing what is right” for customers, and acting with integrity. We encourage the institutions reviewed in this report to consider how their culture may have supported these systemic failures, and why their stated commitment to providing excellent service to customers is not translating into good outcomes for customers in the many instances we identified in this report.
At long last, ASIC has highlighted cultural issues across the industry that the boards and management of the largest banks have long refused to acknowledge. 
The regulator has done its job and found compelling evidence that the culture of the banks is rotten. 
It’s over to the politicians now.
Pat McConnell is honorary fellow, Macquarie University Applied Finance Centre, Macquarie University and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/pat-mcconnell-13137" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

ASIC report highlights a deep culture problem in Australia’s banks

<html><body>
ASIC has permanently banned former Sydney finance broker, Jennifer Farias of Elderslie, from engaging in credit activities and providing financial services.
The bannings follow an ASIC investigation and criminal action against Ms Farias who pleaded guilty in the NSW Local Court in the Downing Centre in Sydney to three charges of loan fraud.
ASIC's Deputy Chairman Peter Kell said, 'ASIC's action in this matter demonstrates how serious we are about tackling loan fraud. We won't hesitate to take action against dishonest brokers who falsify documents and remove them from the industry.'
Ms Farias has the right to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of ASIC's decision.
</body></html>

jonathanchancellor-7SQnKwU6yx

ASIC permanently bans former Sydney finance broker 

<html><body>
<div class="_rp_h">
<div class="_rp_i ms-font-color-neutralPrimary ms-font-weight-light ms-font-xxl">
Chair of the Tax Practitioners Board (TPB), Mr Ian Taylor, has  invited stakeholders to comment on four new draft information sheets providing practical guidance on how the Code of Professional Conduct (the Code) applies to tax (financial) advisers.
‘All registered tax practitioners, including tax (financial) advisers, need to ensure they comply with their obligations under the Code. To assist tax (financial) advisers to understand what this means for them, the TPB has issued four exposure draft documents relating to acting in the best interests of their clients, taking reasonable care to ascertain a client’s state of affairs, applying tax laws correctly and managing conflicts of interest,’ Mr Taylor said.
‘I encourage all interested parties to take the opportunity to review the exposure drafts and provide their comments.’
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="_rp_E4">
<div class="_rp_q4 ms-border-color-neutralLight ShowReferenceAttachmentsLinks">
<div class="_rp_B4">
<div id="Item.MessagePartBody" class="_rp_s4">
<div id="Item.MessageUniqueBody" class="_rp_t4 ms-font-weight-regular ms-font-color-neutralDark rpHighlightAllClass rpHighlightBodyClass">
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.tpb.gov.au/TPB/Publications_and_legislation/TPB/Publications_and_legislation/ED/0714_-_Code_of_Professional_Conduct_-_Acting_lawfully_in_the_best_interests_of_clients_for_TFAs.aspx" target="_blank">TPB(I) D32/2016 Code of Professional Conduct - Acting lawfully in the best interests of clients for tax (financial) advisers</a></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.tpb.gov.au/TPB/Publications_and_legislation/TPB/Publications_and_legislation/ED/0715_-_Code_of_Professional_Conduct_-_Reasonable_care_to_ascertain_a_client_s_state_of_affairs_TFAs.aspx" target="_blank">TPB(I) D33/2016 Code of Professional Conduct - Reasonable care to ascertain a client's state of affairs for tax (financial) advisers</a></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.tpb.gov.au/TPB/Publications_and_legislation/TPB/Publications_and_legislation/ED/0716_Code_of_Professional_Conduct_-_Reasonable_care__-_taxation_laws_applied_correctly_TFAs.aspx" target="_blank">TPB(I) D34/2016 Code of Professional Conduct - Reasonable care to ensure taxation laws are applied correctly for tax (financial) advisers</a></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.tpb.gov.au/TPB/Publications_and_legislation/TPB/Publications_and_legislation/ED/0717_Code_of_Professional_Conduct_-_Having_adequate_arrangement_managing_conflicts_of_interest_TFAs.aspx" target="_blank">TPB(I) D35/2016 Code of Professional Conduct - Having adequate arrangements for managing conflicts of interest for tax (financial) advisers</a></li>
</ul>
All submissions will be reviewed and considered before the final information sheets are published on the TPB website.
Submissions on the four exposure drafts close on 11 July 2016. Comments can be sent to <a href="mailto:tpbsubmissions@tpb.gov.au" target="_blank">tpbsubmissions@tpb.gov.au</a>
 
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body></html>

po-LsXgBTHBmX

Property 101: Professional conduct draft for tax advisers

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
One of the biggest frustrations I have with the financial industry is the inability and general exclusion of property discussions by financial advisers and mortgage brokers alike.
I know this general lack of care and foresight in itself is affecting clients in life changing and sometimes irreparable ways. Whether they have not benefitted from the huge growth in the property market in the last five years as the adviser thought it was "too expensive", have unfortunately bought wrong assets with huge risks because they didn’t know who to ask, or they have gone ahead and not purchased anything at all because the adviser never discussed it with them.
One of the most cherished parts of my day to day role as a trusted adviser is to help my clients think through their property related decisions.
For example, this daily discussion could be helping my clients to understand whether they should or should not buy an investment property today, or when they want to buy a home in the future. It might be to discuss whether they should sell and buy a new family home or if it is better to renovate the one they live in today. It may be a strategic plan on how to build a multiple property portfolio over the next 30 years or it could be whether they should be buying a property at all.
All of these conversations are highly interesting and add huge measurable value in the future life of my clients. I love to help them think through their decisions and help them go deep in to the property market psyche. Let me be clear, this is not recommending individual properties on individual streets, but educating them on what drives the market and what type of properties suit their plan at this stage. I leave the hard work of finding the right property to professionals who know what they are doing - called buyer's agents. They are the ones who will find the right property to suit them long-term and not just today - not me.
Unfortunately however, I know I am rarity in the financial planning and mortgage industry. I would prefer that I wasn’t but due to being a financial planner, my previous experience in a property firm and also a mortgage broker I have had exposure to the many different areas of the property market. This experience while invaluable is also unique but I believe this should be a necessity and obligation for any aspiring financial planner.
Property has been an asset class that financial advisers have never had, and purposely not had, on their radar.
While completing initial qualifications it is barely mentioned and let alone tested in any way. The major financial institutions do not have any desire to encourage or educate their financial advisers to recommend property. To put simply, it would hurt their profits and shareholders would not like that.
Why has it not been discussed? Why have the majority of the advice industry decided to ignore a recommendation for over 20 years?
Internally within the industry, we all understand that the reason financial planners do not discuss it is because they do not get paid.
Financial planners have always been paid a commission for recommending investment share based products. If they recommended clients to purchase a property, they would not get paid. Sounds simple and maybe a rhetorical question; but is that advising or selling I ask?
If they recommended their client to consider purchasing a property and not shares, they would in affect rule themselves out of a nice paycheck today and to compound the issue further a lot of income in the future.
You see the ongoing fee package for the vast majority of financial planners is based on a percentage based fee. It is called an Asset Based Management Fee and has been around 1% for a long time.
Therefore, the more an adviser recommends for you to invest with them in shares and the less for you invest in property – the more money they make every year. If you a noticing a slight conflict here, you could be on to something?
To make you aware, there are legislation restrictions on advisers from recommending individual direct property and importantly professional indemnity insurance usually does not cover this advice. I am in complete and resounding support of advisers not recommending individual property. It would be highly conflicted and we are not the right people for the job in the first place.
Property is not an investment Australians would generally go to a financial planner to discuss. I would argue however that it one of the most important things they should be able to and need to discuss.
Property has been a great asset class for investors and homeowners. An important part and only a part of an adviser role is to help their clients to invest wisely, safely and in line with their future aspirations. The property market has been a great asset to help clients achieve their aspirations. But why do so many advisers choose to avoid this asset class entirely. In my eyes this should be called either insanity or greed. I’ll let you decide.
Lets put that to one side.
If financial planners are not advising property investors; where do they go?
Unfortunately the vast majority they make this key investment decision themselves. They may ask their friends and family what to do or quickly read a property education magazine, which is full of property developers selling property.
On first glance the property market seems simple, but the more clients understand it, they realise it is not as simple as everyone tends to believe. The first big mistake is that the property market is not one market. Just like the share market every property will perform very differently to every other property over the next 10 or 30 years. Some will do better than others, some will go down in value and some will go up significantly in value. Every property is different, that’s the biggest mistake.
What can be very complex to understand is also exponentially magnified, as the industry is unregulated. Every man, woman and their dog can sell property. They can tell you how amazing growth will be and how outstanding your rental yield is.
Three years ago I was telling clients to avoid mining towns like the plague and sure we all knew a crash was coming. There are houses selling at 20% of the value they were selling three years ago.<a href="https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/realestate/news/property-prices-in-once-booming-mining-towns-crash-providing-lesson-in-where-not-to-invest/story-fni0cly6-1227210791143" target="_blank"> </a>
There are more horror stories of people buying the in the Docklands in Melbourne, Gold Coast and Noosa. There are fundamental risks with huge developments in apartment heaven near Sydney Airport.
You see people have bought all these properties, people are making all these horrible and life changing mistakes. They are real people and they are real losses.
Clients need guidance, clients need protection and clients need help. Unfortunately the property market can say whatever they want to say. Its buyers beware people.
For most Australians, their biggest asset is their home. Therefore their biggest investment decision would usually be the purchase or sale of their home. This decision alone will without doubt have huge impacts on their future wealth and prosperity. If a planner or mortgage broker is not skilled in talking about this decision nor makes an effort to help them with it then whom I ask does? Who are clients getting help from for the biggest financial decision in their life?
The issue I have is that very few planners or mortgage brokers are educating their clients on the property decision. Is it training, conflicted remuneration, education or general lack of care? Unfortunately the consumer society we live in and the significant growth we have witnessed has caused all sorts of problems in the property market. We now believe that anything new is better than old, we now believe that the property market only goes up and we all watch the block thinking renovating and making money in property is simple. I argue however that all three of these are incredibly wrong.
The biggest reason why so many people have made money in property is not through buying smart but it is due to the fact that they have owned property in the first place. This feeling has made people think that any property will do and society pressure to get on the ladder is causing investors to take the line of least of resistance when purchasing. Something new.
The purchase or sale of the property is huge decision. This decision has a whole list of other decisions it also brings. There are hundreds of different strategies, issues and opportunities that an investor needs to understand and consider.
Chris Bates is a director at boutique financial advisors <a href="https://www.canopyprivate.com.au/" target="_blank">Canopy Private</a>.
</body></html>

ChrisBates-qgpJqFG5wJ

Greed or insanity? The financial advice industry is ignoring a key problem: Chris Bates

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
While financial planning is on the pathway to <a href="https://www.gowerpublishing.com/pdf/SamplePages/Conceptions-of-Professionalism-CH1.pdf" target="_blank">professionalism</a>, its education standards continue to be the subject of much discussion – and for good reason.
The current standards set by ASIC mandate a comparatively low level certification program that can be completed in just days. This is clearly inconsistent with the notion of a profession and is certainly not congruent with the complex financial market, product, legal, business and behavioural knowledge and skills a modern planner requires.
Recent key national reviews acknowledge this and have all recommended increasing education standards to bachelor degree level. These include the <a href="https://fsi.gov.au" target="_blank">Financial System Inquiry</a>, The <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Corporations_and_Financial_Services/Financial_Adviser_Qualifications/Report" target="_blank">Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services Inquiry</a> and the Australian Financial Services Licence Industry Working Group.
It is also worth noting that some segments of the industry and some professional associations already have degree level education requirements for membership/employment and ongoing continuing professional development.
So where is ASIC on this and why have the current low standards persisted?
Well, they have tried to raise them. In June 2013 ASIC <a href="https://asic.gov.au/regulatory-resources/find-a-document/consultation-papers/cp-212-licensing-training-of-financial-product-advisers-updates-to-rg-146/" target="_blank">proposed</a> to enhance its guidelines for training of financial advisers in various ways, but this did not progress.
ASIC’s preference is for the introduction of a national exam which it first <a href="https://asic.gov.au/regulatory-resources/find-a-document/consultation-papers/cp-153-licensing-assessment-and-professional-development-framework-for-financial-advisers/" target="_blank">raised</a> in April 2011. The issue was <a href="https://asic.gov.au/regulatory-resources/find-a-document/consultation-papers/cp-212-licensing-training-of-financial-product-advisers-updates-to-rg-146/" target="_blank">raised again</a> last year when ASIC suggested that a national exam “may replace any obligation to do a training course”.
The original model was for the test to take the form of an online three-hour exam both for new advisers and for existing advisers (to be repeated every three years).
More recently, ASIC Chairman Greg Medcraft restated this preference as a fundamental component of <a href="https://www.afr.com/p/opinion/asic_chair_says_set_exams_for_planners_KsJkyswSVengfHmYAmzY6K" target="_blank">his vision</a> for financial advisers where the industry sets the competence levels. This is a departure from ASIC’s earlier proposals, and would see ASIC test competencies by overseeing the exam.
As a result, ASIC is positioning itself to move away from the education/training side of the current regulatory regime, where it has largely failed to deliver an appropriate framework.
This leads to the question of whether requiring advisers to undertake an exam every three years would improve adviser competence and lead to better quality advice.
Simple in theory…
The advantages of a single national exam are drawn from the potential efficiency of it – one instrument that can be completed online, give some indication of adviser competence, and provide a clear pass/fail measure that could be easily benchmarked. It is also a simple measure for consumers to utilise.
But the proposal does also raise a number of concerns.
Financial planning contains a diverse array of knowledge and skill areas (eg economics, investment, tax, legal, retirement, estate, insurance, risk, business, behavioural and client engagement). It is hard to imagine how any reasonable measure of competence could be drawn from one online exam covering all of these.
At the same time, it is difficult to assess “soft” skills in a test or exam, yet they are a key part of effective financial advice.
The licensing regime currently requires planners to be RG146 accredited only in the areas which they provide advice. And exam would therefore need multiple modules or versions to allow for various permutations.
The logistics of implementing the exam for somewhere between 18,000 and 30,000 individuals would be complex and suggests a sophisticated examination regime and significant effort in educational design to ensure the integrity of the instrument and its outcomes.
There are few examples of doing this in related professions (law, accounting, nursing, teaching, medicine) with most professions opting for a continuing professional development model.
The problem with the national exam is therefore simple – who pays?
…Difficult to deliver
To do it well, given the scale and complexity of advice, would come at significant cost. With ASIC’s budget being cut and industry suggesting it is not willing to fund it, it’s unclear how it would be achieved, particularly given concerns about the educational efficacy of it as proposed. So it appears it is unlikely to be implemented as ASIC has suggested.
Rather, the proposal should be seen as part of a broader framework that builds on existing elements such as higher education degrees in financial planning, professional associations and the Professional Standards Councils framework.
Proposals to restrict who can call themselves a financial planner/adviser (including draft legislation) and a compensation scheme add further to the options.
What might seem like an easy fix (just make them all do a test), is likely to be little more use in and of itself as RG146. However, as part of a broader professional framework a national exam may have a role to play. This could be for a more specialised purpose such as verifying currency of knowledge (given the continuous changes to taxation, superannuation and other relevant laws) than what ASIC envisages.
Other elements such as enforceable codes of conduct, complaints systems and compensations schemes would form the broader professional environment and assessment of competency. This would create a level and robust playing field for financial advice and should go some way to building consumer confidence in the sector.
Mark Brimble is discipline head of finance and financial planning at Griffith University.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/36208/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="line-height: 1.3em;">
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" style="line-height: 1.3em;">The Conversation</a>.
</body></html>

Financial Advice

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Financial Advice

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News