<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
     xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
     xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
     xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
    >
    <channel>
        <title>AdviserVoiceMahadeea Archives - AdviserVoice</title>
        <atom:link href="https://www.adviservoice.com.au/tag/mahadeea/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
        <link>https://www.adviservoice.com.au/tag/mahadeea/</link>
        <description>Financial planner information &#38; financial planner education/CPD - AdviserVoice</description>
        <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2026 21:30:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
        <language>en-US</language>
        <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
        <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
        <generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.1</generator>
                    <item>
                <title>My Dealer Services asks Treasury to explore FSC motives behind Future of Advice Licensing whitepaper</title>
                <link>https://www.adviservoice.com.au/2026/09/my-dealer-services-asks-treasury-to-explore-fsc-motives-behind-future-of-advice-licensing-whitepaper/</link>
                <comments>https://www.adviservoice.com.au/2026/09/my-dealer-services-asks-treasury-to-explore-fsc-motives-behind-future-of-advice-licensing-whitepaper/#respond</comments>
                <pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2026 21:10:49 +0000</pubDate>
                <dc:creator>
                                    </dc:creator>
                		<category><![CDATA[White Papers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alexander Euvrard]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mahadeea]]></category>
                <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.adviservoice.com.au/?p=114028</guid>
                                    <description><![CDATA[<div id="attachment_103158" style="width: 660px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img fetchpriority="high" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-103158" class="size-full wp-image-103158" src="https://www.adviservoice.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Euvrard-Alexander-650.png" alt="Alexander Euvrard" width="650" height="350" srcset="https://www.adviservoice.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Euvrard-Alexander-650.png 650w, https://www.adviservoice.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Euvrard-Alexander-650-300x162.png 300w, https://www.adviservoice.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Euvrard-Alexander-650-400x215.png 400w" sizes="(max-width: 650px) 100vw, 650px" /><p id="caption-attachment-103158" class="wp-caption-text">Alexander Euvrard</p></div>
<h3>Self-licensing specialist My Dealer Services (MDS) has written to Treasury asking it to assess the FSC’s recent whitepaper on proposed ASIC industry funding levy changes against what it says is a clear motive to force consolidation of smaller licensees.</h3>
<p>In a submission sent to the government body, MDS said it strongly rejected the FSC White Paper&#8217;s proposal to lift the fixed licence level component of the ASIC levy from $1,500 to $25,000 (Option A) or $40,000 (Option B) offset by a lower per-adviser fee.</p>
<p>Under this proposal a single adviser practice would face an increase of roughly 600% under Option A and over 950% under Option B while a 300-adviser licensee&#8217;s levy would fall by around 23%.</p>
<p>It would mean 15 out of 16 advice licensees, more than half of whom authorise only one or two advisers, would pay more and only 1.5% of licensees who had 100 of more advisers would pay less, MDS Director and Founder Alexander Euvrard and MDS Head of Strategy, Ashley Mahadeea said in the submission.</p>
<p>“Essentially the entire redistribution flows to the 28 licensees at the top. Those licensees, carrying 5,744 advisers or 37.9% of the profession would collectively save in the order of $2.8 million a year under Option A and $9.3 million under Option B.</p>
<p>“That is the transaction at the heart of this proposal: an eight-figure annual transfer from more than 1700 of the smallest advice businesses in the country to a group of large licensees small enough to fit in one (albeit large) boardroom.</p>
<p>“The White Paper&#8217;s own modelling assumes that 15-20% of licensees would consolidate or close as a result. That is not an unintended side effect to be managed; it is the design working as intended.</p>
<p>“A levy whose stated modelling anticipates the exit of one in five licensees, overwhelmingly the smallest, is an industry restructuring instrument, not a cost-recovery mechanism and it should be evaluated as such,” Euvrard and Mahadeea said.</p>
<p>“In our view the proposal is not a funding reform. It is a redistribution of regulatory cost away from large licensees and onto small ones, dressed as risk pricing and it would operate as a structural barrier to the self-licensed model at precisely the time that model is delivering strong growth and client outcomes,”</p>
<p>“Many large adviser groups view the rapidly growing self-licensed sector as a competitive threat; this proposal would materially blunt that competition,” they added.</p>
]]></description>
                                            <content:encoded><![CDATA[<div id="attachment_103158-2" style="width: 660px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-103158-2" class="size-full wp-image-103158" src="https://www.adviservoice.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Euvrard-Alexander-650.png" alt="Alexander Euvrard" width="650" height="350" srcset="https://www.adviservoice.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Euvrard-Alexander-650.png 650w, https://www.adviservoice.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Euvrard-Alexander-650-300x162.png 300w, https://www.adviservoice.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Euvrard-Alexander-650-400x215.png 400w" sizes="(max-width: 650px) 100vw, 650px" /><p id="caption-attachment-103158-2" class="wp-caption-text">Alexander Euvrard</p></div>
<h3>Self-licensing specialist My Dealer Services (MDS) has written to Treasury asking it to assess the FSC’s recent whitepaper on proposed ASIC industry funding levy changes against what it says is a clear motive to force consolidation of smaller licensees.</h3>
<p>In a submission sent to the government body, MDS said it strongly rejected the FSC White Paper&#8217;s proposal to lift the fixed licence level component of the ASIC levy from $1,500 to $25,000 (Option A) or $40,000 (Option B) offset by a lower per-adviser fee.</p>
<p>Under this proposal a single adviser practice would face an increase of roughly 600% under Option A and over 950% under Option B while a 300-adviser licensee&#8217;s levy would fall by around 23%.</p>
<p>It would mean 15 out of 16 advice licensees, more than half of whom authorise only one or two advisers, would pay more and only 1.5% of licensees who had 100 of more advisers would pay less, MDS Director and Founder Alexander Euvrard and MDS Head of Strategy, Ashley Mahadeea said in the submission.</p>
<p>“Essentially the entire redistribution flows to the 28 licensees at the top. Those licensees, carrying 5,744 advisers or 37.9% of the profession would collectively save in the order of $2.8 million a year under Option A and $9.3 million under Option B.</p>
<p>“That is the transaction at the heart of this proposal: an eight-figure annual transfer from more than 1700 of the smallest advice businesses in the country to a group of large licensees small enough to fit in one (albeit large) boardroom.</p>
<p>“The White Paper&#8217;s own modelling assumes that 15-20% of licensees would consolidate or close as a result. That is not an unintended side effect to be managed; it is the design working as intended.</p>
<p>“A levy whose stated modelling anticipates the exit of one in five licensees, overwhelmingly the smallest, is an industry restructuring instrument, not a cost-recovery mechanism and it should be evaluated as such,” Euvrard and Mahadeea said.</p>
<p>“In our view the proposal is not a funding reform. It is a redistribution of regulatory cost away from large licensees and onto small ones, dressed as risk pricing and it would operate as a structural barrier to the self-licensed model at precisely the time that model is delivering strong growth and client outcomes,”</p>
<p>“Many large adviser groups view the rapidly growing self-licensed sector as a competitive threat; this proposal would materially blunt that competition,” they added.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.adviservoice.com.au/2026/09/my-dealer-services-asks-treasury-to-explore-fsc-motives-behind-future-of-advice-licensing-whitepaper/">My Dealer Services asks Treasury to explore FSC motives behind Future of Advice Licensing whitepaper</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.adviservoice.com.au">AdviserVoice</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
                                    <wfw:commentRss>https://www.adviservoice.com.au/2026/09/my-dealer-services-asks-treasury-to-explore-fsc-motives-behind-future-of-advice-licensing-whitepaper/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
                <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>                            </item>
            </channel>
</rss>