More warnings sound on restrictions of limited AFSL

Written by Miranda Brownlee Tuesday, 19 January 2016

For accountants willing to take on some extra work – and risk – it may be more beneficial to look at a full AFSL or authorisation under a full licence, given the limitations of the limited licence, one industry lawyer has warned.

Jaime Lumsden Kelly of The Fold Legal told SMSF Adviser that the various restrictions of the limited licence prevent accountants from being able to provide a full service to their clients. 

“They have to bring in other financial planners and life insurance experts to be able to provide full services for clients so for accountants who want to be able to retain that control themselves, there’s a lot of value in it,” she said.

The main hurdle for accountants who might want to go down this path remains the three-year experience requirement, given there are no transitional arrangements for the full licence, she said.

Accountants would therefore need to provide financial planning under another full ASFL before applying for their own.

Bluepoint Consulting adviser Tony Bates agrees that it may be worthwhile for accountants to look at the full AFSL or authorisation under a full licence since he considers the limited licence to be the least appealing option for them.

“[It] adds a whole lot of new compliance, new costs, new risks, new supervision for doing what they have always been able to do,” he argues.

“I can understand their frustration because they are not really going to be able to pass these costs and liabilities to their clients.”

Limited licences, under which accountants are limited to discussing advice on establishing an SMSF, contributing to it and commencing pensions, may leave “accountants stranded”, he warned.

“I just think that you might be better off going for the full licence; [otherwise], it’s a lot of headache, a lot of compliance, a lot of risk, for no new benefit," Mr Bates said.

Read more: 

ATO tipped to release new ruling on TRIS

ETF industry tipped to gain $8bn

'Ride through’ volatility, investors told

Add comment


Security code
Refresh

Comments   

 
+1 #1 Grahame Evans 2016-01-19 09:12
Jamie's right. Accountants who wish to keep full control, will need to seek a full licence. However many people have failed to recognise that the reason for the second transition phase, was to provide accountants with " "three out of the last five years" experience in financial advice so that when they hit 1 July 2019, they will be able to demonstrate the three years which years from 1 July 2016 to 1 July 2019. This will then provide them with a strong opportunity, but no guarantee, that they will be able to gain their full licence.So at this stage, unless you can show three out of last five years experience, the limited licence or an authorisation with another licensee are still your only two options.
Quote
 

Straw Poll

Has the budget affected your ability to advise your clients on super
  • Votes: (0%)
  • Votes: (0%)
Total Votes:
First Vote:
Last Vote:

Latest Columns

Latest Comments

  • ASIC drills in warning to accountants

    Chris you sound like the old planners 20 years ago when FSR first hit and they had to actually put their advice in writing, they too had the mantra ...
    25 May 13:12  
  • Lenders still ‘dialling down’ on LRBAs

    Given the limits on LVRs and liquidity restrictions, the downside risks to LRBAs are limited. Without the benefit of SMSF Loans crystal ball, who's to ...
    24 May 18:11  
  • ASIC drills in warning to accountants

    " joining the club with the investment scammers, the property spruikers, and all of the other people who choose to operate illegally" Yeah, it's great ...
    24 May 12:13