The cost of advice for consumers could climb by over 70% as advisers, move further towards fee for service models to replace lost income.

The government is likely to approve a staged removal over 12-24 months, attempting to limit the damage to industry by allowing advice businesses to make an orderly transition to new fee arrangements.

Nevertheless, impacts will invariably include poorly managed business transitions (from vendor to acquirer), further adviser turnover, and potentially high levels of stranded or orphaned advised clients and associated wealth.

what Hayne articulates here is logical, but advisers would no doubt take issue with this reasoning.

It is after all in the adviser’s interest (and law requires) to act in the client’s best interest.

Also assuming an adviser would always act to benefit themselves financially is akin to assuming all humans follow the out-dated model of homo-economics, making rational choices to maximise their own utility.

Advisers who deal with human clients making decisions on an everyday basis would certainly know that is not the case.

It is the very fact that the result is not surprising that shows that the premise of the current law is flawed. It is not surprising that, despite the breadth of approved product lists, more than two-thirds (by value) of the investments made by clients of vertically integrated institutions were made in in-house products

.And that is not surprising because experience shows, and has shown for decades, that, more often than not, interest trumps duty.

But, as noted above, the premise for the FoFA reforms was that, although conflicts between the duties owed by an adviser or a licensee and the interests of that adviser or that licensee exist and must be recognised, those conflicts can be ‘managed’ and regulated.

As I have said, the FoFA reforms were not designed to eliminate the conflicts, but to try to ameliorate their consequences.

”t is understandable that many advisers would be unable to remain in the industry if the recommendations are made law.

An "advice gap" looks to be an inevitable result - the increasing cost of fee for service advice risks alienating clients who will no longer be able to afford the up front fee.

Many Australian's who potentially would have sought advice will no longer do so - or at least, they will have to wait till newer business models emerge that can service their needs.

The client’s interests always require consideration of whether to take any step, and only then, consideration of what steps to take. Doing nothing is an available choice. Sometimes it is the best choice.

If steps are to be taken, it is in the client’s interests to take whatever steps are best for them (best both in the sense of achieving the best outcome for the client, but best also in the sense of achieving that outcome most efficiently at the best available price).

edited from an adviser rating email letter to us today for us to emphasis there is always 2 sides to a fair trail.

🔦🔦🔦🔦🔦🤔🤔🤔🏏🏏🏏