Connect and engage

None!

$70m divided by 15,000 advisers is less than $5k each.
If you have 100 clients thats $50 per client per year.
SUre, the CSLR is an utter joke, but let's pretend that it's sending us poor or that we cannot easily pass this cost straight through to clients.
A smart adviser would just up their base fee by an extra $100 this year, which allows the scheme to blow out to $140m without costing you.
Life is unfair, boo hoo, less crying, just implement smart solutions.

Who is paying for the "adviser content" charge for the CSLR?
ie. Are the industry funds employed advisers being included/ allocated a CSLR charge? 
I reviewed an SOA prepared by a Uni Super - Private Client Adviser, an employee representative of Uni Super Management. are they being allocated a contribution for CSLR
What about the Intra Fund providers?

Where's all the shouty ethicist academics?

They have had an opinion on everything before, perhaps they should give their opinion now.

This is massive moral hazard, unfair and unethical.

What should my clients in regional Australia pay more to cover the Dixon debacle which was reported to ASIC before it all blew up.

Ok, but it still doesn't explain why Dixons was chosen as the only retrospective claim under the CSLR. 

As a financial planner, I understand the purpose of CSLR. What I don't understand is how complaints against people who are not licensed financial planners is caught by this scheme. 

it's easy, just partner with individual advisers. Problem solved. 

I read a lot of Advisers blaming the previous government (Liberals) for past mistakes. Let's remember if a Government calls for consultation and your Industry Associations put forward recommendations, then the Government who ever they are, are highly likely to adopt those measures. Advisers need to have a good hard look at those Wolves in Sheep clothing purporting to Advocate on their behalf. Those Wolves range from your licencee with a vested interest or a former FPA for example putting forward to FASEA that a Bachelor of Business Degree is merely worth 20 points.   

They’ve gone from milking the cows to now butchering them. Not a good career prospect at all. 

You're degree was not recognized by FASEA, the Liberals had nothing to do with it. The Liberals and both sides of parliament,  merely gave FASEA the power and authority to determine a meaning of a degree. That meaning could have been an Accounting Degree.  FASEA adopted recommendations put forward by your industry representatives namely the FPA which recommended your Accounting Degree was worth 20 points out of 100. 

The AIOFP tends to support whichever party provides a Guest Speaker at their annual conference. However I cannot fault their logic nor their determination to get a good outcome for Advisers. They're doing a lot more for Advisers than the FAAA ever did in the last 30 years, and I take my hat off to them. Sadly that says more about the hapless FAAA  and their delusional belief that their future is with AwareSuper et al.   

What about the legal concept of equity? If the law is drafted in an unfair manner (e.g. slugging advisers for someone else's wrongdoing), surely a court can rectify the situation to make it fair. Otherwise, the government of the day will keep legislating the industry out of existence. 

The Dixon review when it happens will find political (Protectionism) motivations were at the foundations of the CSLR regulations and as such Jones has resigned before the investigations begin. It will also show ASIC were complicit and all those involved are using this time to delete emails and make deals.

Any party that seeks to adopt a term called Qualified Advisers and thinks backpackers on a working holiday visa  is the solution to financial advice needs to go.

Most Advisers are licensed via large insto's that invariably have a vested interest in making financial services laws complex for the adviser,  some even have a link to a product such as an in-house MDA etc.  We will never have a voice whilst we outsource it to an AFSL with a conflicted interest.

How many more nails are required?

It's Futile! 

Buy a coffee a shop there cheap at the moment yes early starts, yes, a lot less money yes, you have to put up with casual employee but hell but just about anything beats running a FP business regardless of the profit margins. 

This article is like reading some type of paid Advertisement.  If you're just going to get a couple of CEO's from Software companies you may as well just cut and paste a press release.

How many firms will now shed advisers that were just on the edge of being profitable?  

When you add it all up on a "per adviser cost basis" with their salary, 12% super coming, their Licensee Fee, their cost of Xplan, cost of PI, cost of ASIC Levy, cost of CSLR, plus all the usual extras you would have to be very close to cost of $170k to $200k pa per employed adviser.  

Neither one of the two major political parties cares and neither do the Green's.  Nothing will get better.