Letters to the Editor

“At the risk of betraying my vintage, and sounding like a Luddite: It is only a matter of time before the portal gets hacked, and It is only a matter of time before the password manager gets hacked. I have clients who struggle to use email - they are literally incapable of using 2FA and are seriously disempowered by our use of complex technologies for everything.”

“At Financial Mappers we recently had a Financial Planning group request this service. As a result, we have created a portal where clients must log in and documents, plans, and questions are all shared within the encrypted portal. The product should be live by next week.”

“The leading question should be; What are Advisers expected to pay for and WHY? If a service or product is faulty, then there is an expectation that the entity who provided the faulty service or product, is responsible for making amends. It is recognised that there has been an acceptance of an unworkable maze of complexity that has led to the current disaster for Financial Planners and all Australians, whereby the "product" being the Regulatory framework, has led to the cost and accessibility of Advice being out of reach for the vast majority of Australians, which is a product failure. No-one wants to pay exorbitant costs for anything and the Regulator, just like everyone else, must justify their fees and the work they do, so it is fair for all parties. The Government creates the Regulations and the Regulator must abide by them. If the process is expensive and confusing, then why should Advisers pay for that?”

“Given our legal system and administrative review panels for professional conduct are modelled upon statute, case law, and legal principles governing the codification of review standards that a panel would use to determine administrative responses in regard to a breach of conduct under a professional standard's code, the minimal standard of establishing a breach is based on the 'balance of probabilities' in a civil case architecture, and therefore requires an alignment on mitigating factors or causal events to link such factors and events to an implied effect from these on the 'balance of probabilities'. If this simple standard to determine the effect of an Adviser's actions is to not be linked to mitigating factors or causal events on the 'balance of probabilities', then what standard will the Review Panel use in making a determination to attribute cause or fault in consideration of its inventory of remedies? Establishing a standard of attribution of fault without having an established legal standard of 'balance of probabilities' invites the development of a new standard which is subject to a subjective standard, either by the review panel members for the case, or by the FSCP governance mechanics to determine it for each case. Either way, to permit a hearing model without the proven accountability of the 'balance of probabilities' standard invites inconsistency in determinations and governance to responding to complaints over the long term.”