We believe that the services that should be identified in an SDS are the contract services to which the client has consented. If a customer has agreed with their provider to include certain services, this is the standard position that should not be changed. As noted above, the ASIC guidelines on this point have the risk of changing the terms of the agreement that the client has entered into. One of the main problems in the guidance sector is that the tariff opening declarations (SDS) must be quite correct. This is to the very specific wording in the Corporations Act on what an SDF is. From this point of view, every error, regardless of its weakness, means that the supplier has not provided an SDS and obtains legal sanctions under the Corporations Act and (for post-FOFA OFAS) terminates its OFA. Since there is no explicit threshold of service for an SDS, this was not feasible in practice and led to a large number of technical offences for which the error in the SDF was so small that it would not affect a client. Michael is a leading expert in financial services regulation with more than 30 years of experience in whether an ongoing pricing system can only be renewed through a renewal communication. ASIC could provide instructions on what is an appropriate meaning threshold for an SDF. Although ASIC is not in a position to rewrite the Corporations Act, they could give a non-action position. However, this would leave the risk of consumer compensation. ASIC has previously considered significant thresholds for conflicting compensation. A position of ASIC that errors below a certain threshold would not be considered infringements would in future create a viable position for ATOS suppliers.
Another option is to provide guidelines for accepting elements of the defective disclosure statement, so that only SDSs with “substantially prejudicial” errors or commissions would be “defective.” Our minimum fee for our current bronze service level, which includes an annual face-to-face review, is $1,000. ASIC proposes to provide guidelines on the regulation of current pricing systems (ATOs). Depending on their position, these rules could be simplified or become even heavier, which have been a challenge for the guidance sector since they were introduced as part of the financial advice reform. The cost of our current service agreements varies depending on the level of service required, but also the complexity of your asset portfolio. Our fees are always explained in detail by our consultants and are clearly documented in our retail agreement and customer expense agreement. At each evaluation meeting, we will update your personal circumstances and see if your lifestyle and investment goals have changed. We will also update your risk profile and determine if your current investments are still appropriate. As a result of our review, we may need to rebalance your investments or rebalance your funds to continue to achieve your objectives, which we will do as part of the current service agreement. Registration for the FPA Professional Ongoing Fees Code is now possible. When you read the registration agreement, you can understand the main obligations and decide if you want to participate.
Click the button below to access the registration form. An ATI is defined (in summary) as an agreement under which royalties are collected for a period of more than 12 months.