Australian Broker forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Should brokers have to foot the bill for ASIC?

Notify me of new replies via email
Julia Corderoy | 31 Aug 2015, 08:05 AM Agree 0
ASIC has backed government proposals which will see the regulator switch to an industry funded model, replacing the taxpayer funded model in which it currently operates
  • Russell Murphy | 31 Aug 2015, 08:47 AM Agree 0
    I absolutely endorse the NCCP because while consumers are entitled to a fair shake the wider economy needs protection from 90's style excesses. But compliance is inordinately costly & its a self serving bureaucratic snow job to debate that "the taxpayer cant afford it" so "business should wear it". No matter how its dressed up, this is still an exercise in putting a public hand into a private pocket.
  • QEDRisk | 31 Aug 2015, 08:49 AM Agree 0
    Unlike other stakeholders that ASIC currently regulates, Credit Licensees ALREADY pay a significant annual fee that is linked to their revenue base - similar to the fees paid by banks and insurance companies to APRA.

    If there is going to be more industry funding for ASIC, I'm all for it - as long as it doesn't come from credit licensees!!
  • Sunny | 31 Aug 2015, 08:52 AM Agree 0
    Well strange we should have criminals funding the police force
  • John C | 31 Aug 2015, 08:56 AM Agree 0
    I disagree. Industry funded bodies do not work and we see this with groups such as COSL and the like where there is no autonomy and is open to serious conflict of interest, because the Industry body is being asked to adjudicate against the members who are paying their fees. In the COSL scenario I am aware of a number cases where COSL has handed down a decision against the complainant which has gone to court and had the decision overturned back in favour of the complainant.
  • Scott Beattie | 31 Aug 2015, 09:27 AM Agree 0
    Its a great idea - just look at political parties - nothing bad ever happens when this kind of thing happens.....
  • Mark Jenson | 31 Aug 2015, 09:37 AM Agree 0
    Well, who did not see this coming. Whilst I concur wholeheartedly with the need to regulate the broking industry it just seems far too coincidental that now that the framework for regulation is in place, that they want to charge us another fee to regulate us. What do we pay our renewal fees. How do they apportion how much of their overhead relates to the broking industry.
    Just another case of looking to charge those who make the least noise. Next there will be an ATO fee to lodge a tax return because it creates work for them.
  • Ted Bullpit | 31 Aug 2015, 10:10 AM Agree 0
    In getting a second job with asic and regulate myself. Nice to be my own boss again. No conflict of interest there :)))
  • Jerry Gibb | 31 Aug 2015, 10:39 AM Agree 0
    I am not anti a user pay service. Having said that as a credit licensee I would assume what ever we pay for the licence will be taken into overall consideration when this new fee is introduced.
  • sigh.... | 31 Aug 2015, 11:11 AM Agree 0
    Another group who don't add value to my business, with their hand out.
    Even more reason for people to avoid Broking as a occupation.
    So ASIC can overpay staff to ridiculous levels, and then simply pass the cost on to the end of the food chain....unchecked.
    Even my COSL subscription has gone up over 100% in the last 3 years, despite never having a complaint.
    Australia....king of the middle men!
  • Papery | 31 Aug 2015, 12:15 PM Agree 0
    So, last week we all got worked up over the fact that the Lenders were the problem with writing questionable was generally agreed that delinquency rates are at historical lows & just to make sure ASIC/APRA have now made it tougher for a loan a to be written in the first place..... so now they want Brokers to pay for over the top regulation for a problem that barely exits....I just hope the Lenders get invoiced appropriately for complying with regulation as well.
  • Broker | 31 Aug 2015, 12:39 PM Agree 0
    Oh the opportunities are endless!
  • Regional Broker | 31 Aug 2015, 12:40 PM Agree 0
    If we are to see an industry funded model , it would need an efficient and leaner ASIC. At the moment it is full of fat cats and ineffective enforcement, we are seeing cases that are 3-4 years old still being dealt with, not good enough! Get the knife out!
  • Harold Spencer | 31 Aug 2015, 01:40 PM Agree 0
    Not a problem so long as it works the other way, when ASIC gets it wrong and someone has spent countless hours and resources defending an action from ASIC then they should pay.
  • Peter White CEO FBAA | 31 Aug 2015, 03:55 PM Agree 0
    People the actual proposal isn't aimed at finance brokers but financial planning sector.

    So not us folks.

    That said the FBAA is in there at a Federal Government level to make sure it says there - as commented herein, we/brokers already pay significantly to ASICs coppers under the NCCP
  • SEQ Broker | 01 Sep 2015, 09:05 AM Agree 0
    I dunno Guys, We could learn from the LABOR party here. If we have to pay to ASIC, then perhaps we can conduct ourselves in the way that UNION officials do (read, scam, lie, cheat and defraud our customers) as that will be the norm in these kinds of setups is it not? Then if there is ever a royal commission we will simply snuff it out by implying that the commissioner is biased against something despite their exemplary 40 year record.
    The point is will a broker funded ASIC be as sharp in 20 years?
  • Bruce Mawson | 01 Sep 2015, 09:11 AM Agree 0
    It confuses a bit as this would surely fly in the face of their presumptive argument, you can only be operating for the interests of your income source.

    Or perhaps they now understand although our commission is paid by Lenders we function in the best interest of our clients - the borroweres
  • charlie | 07 Sep 2015, 01:45 PM Agree 0
    Sure it will work just like the energy industry (gas, electricity) too, where the consumer always the loser. Why would you bite the hands that feed you? This is getting ridiculous already just the thought of it. So many quasi-organisations in this country that no one really is in charge and no one knows who is in charge. Why the hell do we elect the politicians anyway? Just so they can get jobs so the unemployment rate in this country does not look so bad?
  • Peter | 07 Sep 2015, 02:18 PM Agree 0
    The bottomless pit has just been opened. The cost is huge and the government can't wait to get someone else to pay. The industries where this has happened end up being hugely expensive. ASIC's idea of staffing and cost structures is public service based and bears no relationship to the companies they are supposed to be regulating. If their staffing and output were to be based on private enterprise models this may have some merit but we all know that won't happen. The cost will be huge and effectively it is a tax on business by any other name. Very sneaky but without the stench of a public new tax. It will be interesting so see how this pans out. While the big Banks will openly oppose this, secretly they will know that they will be able to lobby more effectively as they will be paying the biggest fees. Ultimately we will all pay.
Post a reply