Does a new ASIC funding model hurt brokers?
Published 20-OCT-2015 11:25 A.M.
|
2 minute read
Hey! Looks like you have stumbled on the section of our website where we have archived articles from our old business model.
In 2019 the original founding team returned to run Next Investors, we changed our business model to only write about stocks we carefully research and are invested in for the long term.
The below articles were written under our previous business model. We have kept these articles online here for your reference.
Our new mission is to build a high performing ASX micro cap investment portfolio and share our research, analysis and investment strategy with our readers.
Click Here to View Latest Articles
A new ASIC funding proposal targeting stockbrokers has come under fire from the Stockbrokers Association of Australia (SAA).
The SAA has labelled the proposal a tax, saying it will jeopardise the financial position of several practices and lead to job losses.
The Stockbrokers Association of Australia has issued its own submission with regards to the Government’s proposed ASIC funding model, warning that some broking firms will be slugged with an increase in supervisory costs of up to 400 per cent which they will be unable to pass on to investors.
They claim that this will result in a disproportionate impact on smaller broking firms, who are already under significant compliance and industry cost burdens.
“The broking industry already contributes around $16 million to ASIC supervision through the Market Supervision Cost Recovery levy,” said Andrew Green, CEO of the Stockbrokers Association of Australia.
“Brokers are also subject to other cost recovery regimes, including AUSTRAC cost recovery and Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) annual fees.
“The ASIC funding proposal is just another tax on the industry which could lead to firms closing operations in Australia and moving offshore to lower cost jurisdictions.
“This will weaken Australia’s position and compromise our ability to compete with other markets in our region,” he said.
Mr Green fears that the new proposal could also result in broking firms being hit with additional costs. These costs would come from industry sectors including market exchange operators.
The Association believes an alternative mechanism to consider is a transaction based levy.
“While a levy has a number of shortcomings, it would overcome the difficulties brokers face in passing through costs,” Mr Green said.
“A transaction levy such as that employed in Hong Kong, which is based on the dollar value of the transaction, may be preferable to a cost recovery burden that would significantly damage the broking sector.”
General Information Only
This material has been prepared by Jason Price. Jason Price is an authorised representative (AR 000296877) of 62 Consulting Pty Limited (ABN 88 664 809 303) (AFSL 548573) (62C), and a Director of S3 Consortium Pty Ltd (trading as StocksDigital).
This material is general advice only and is not an offer for the purchase or sale of any financial product or service. The material is not intended to provide you with personal financial or tax advice and does not take into account your personal objectives, financial situation or needs. Although we believe that the material is correct, no warranty of accuracy, reliability or completeness is given, except for liability under statute which cannot be excluded. Please note that past performance may not be indicative of future performance and that no guarantee of performance, the return of capital or a particular rate of return is given by 62C, Jason Price, StocksDigital, any of their related body corporates or any other person. To the maximum extent possible, 62C, Jason Price, StocksDigital, their related body corporates or any other person do not accept any liability for any statement in this material.
Conflicts of Interest Notice
S3 and its associated entities may hold investments in companies featured in its articles, including through being paid in the securities of the companies we provide commentary on. We disclose the securities held in relation to a particular company that we provide commentary on. Refer to our Disclosure Policy for information on our self-imposed trading blackouts, hold conditions and de-risking (sell conditions) which seek to mitigate against any potential conflicts of interest.
Publication Notice and Disclaimer
The information contained in this article is current as at the publication date. At the time of publishing, the information contained in this article is based on sources which are available in the public domain that we consider to be reliable, and our own analysis of those sources. The views of the author may not reflect the views of the AFSL holder. Any decision by you to purchase securities in the companies featured in this article should be done so after you have sought your own independent professional advice regarding this information and made your own inquiries as to the validity of any information in this article.
Any forward-looking statements contained in this article are not guarantees or predictions of future performance, and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, many of which are beyond our control, and which may cause actual results or performance of companies featured to differ materially from those expressed in the statements contained in this article. S3 cannot and does not give any assurance that the results or performance expressed or implied by any forward-looking statements contained in this article will actually occur and readers are cautioned not to put undue reliance on forward-looking statements.
This article may include references to our past investing performance. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of our future investing performance.