My impression from ASIC is they're targeting those that have been paid by someone for creating content that may influence financial decisions, yet they do not have the proper financial license.

Still this has made things more confusing. What if I was putting our my thoughts and research on a company on say youtube even if I'm not paid or receiving earnings from advertisers?

Lots of questions still to be clarified.

The link below pretty much explains the hurdles faced by finfluencers to get the license. Click on the link where it mentions "undergone considerable training"

https://www.abc.net.au/everyday/finfluencer-money-advice-on-social-media/100959788

I noticed not all degrees are covered. Macquarie Uni doesn't even have any degrees on the list which means you may need to be asked to do extra subjects before taking the exam and completing the professional year.

I did notice TAFE NSW had a accredited financial planning course endorsed for the AFSL which was surprising!

Agree. There are some Muppets but there are also some excellent content producers.

Andrew and Scott discussed the ability (or lack thereof) for ASIC to manage this in a recent edition of MF Money podcast: https://podcastaddict.com/episode/137397614 

I'm of a slightly different opinion. I don't think we should leave individuals to decide what content to consume. Unlike the majority of us on Strawman, many of these finfluencers audiences are uneducated and vulnerable when it comes to investing. Not everyone can be an expert in everything and this is why we have these hurdles in place - to protect the general public. You need to be licenced to practice medicine and this protects us from snake oil salesman peddling crap. Same goes for being a lawyer or a pilot. Police background checks and other hurdles are in place to work with children as a teacher or in childcare etc etc. We don't let individuals pick just anyone to treat their ailments, fly their plane or give them legal advice. Why should financial advice be any different?

@Maaxweell @CanadianAussie 100% agree MrBetterInvesting on youtube should not be telling investors what stocks to buy. But what if MrBetterInvesting posted a video discussing a company, outlining what they do, how they generate revenue, what their profitability looks like, what their profitability could look like in the future, what the valuation is currently and how it compares to historical valuations. Is a well articulated thesis still considered financial advise?

This ASIC crackdown will likely reduce the number of content creators that do put out great research in fear of being punished. I understand it is all a bit of a grey area and where exactly do you draw the line. Many of these content creators have profited from their viewers and affiliate links at the cost of others but I'd hate to see the good ones out their punished because of other peoples actions.

For me it's not that 'finfluencers' shouldn't be regulated, but rather that obtaining accreditation should be fair and cost effective.

Having gone through the process previously, it cost me about $40k in legal and compliance fees to get the general advice license. I then need to undergo an audit each year (usually costing around $3-5k) and must also have personal indemnity insurance, which can cost in excess of $20k per year. Plus, ASIC slogs you with an industry levy and other fees that adds a few more thousand.

It's outrageous. And the reason the incumbents love it is it keeps the disruptors away.

Also, what sticks in my craw is that we've seen exactly how these incumbents have behaved. The royal commission uncovered a litany of grift and scam of epic proportions -- and all prosecuted by licensed advisors.

And what blows my mind is that if i want to flog crypto or property, go for it! no license required!! Say what you like, when you like to who you like! Unbelievable.

It does seem to be an arduous structure designed to entrench the status quo. If you are going to impose these standards for fees and insurances then they should be made compulsory across all asset classes. The amount of times a real estate agent has said something like….’you will make a huge return if you buy this property’ or ‘It will only increase in value.’ I was cheeky once and asked one of these agents if they held an AFSL and that they would need to hold one if they were dispensing such investing advice and making these claims. They looked at me blankly!

Good point @markeewan

I'd suspect that anyone on any online platform is subject to these rules. Technically, even if you chat to a friend at the pub about stocks it can be construed as financial advice.

Go figure!

Everyone knows this, but due to an abundance of caution, let me reiterate what's in the T&C's:

Any information posted on the website has been prepared without taking into account your objectives, financial situation or needs and as such, you should before acting on the information or advice, consider the appropriateness of the information or advice in relation to your objectives, financial situation or needs. Please be aware that any information posted on this site should not be considered to be financial product advice.

More simply -- you are responsible for your own financial decisions.

Also, best not to to link to any financial products that you may be eligible to get a commission on (not that i've ever seen that).

The only referral program we have is with Sharesight, but their legal team tell us this is exempt as it's not a financial product.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to email me at andrew@strawman.com