News reports show a drop in adviser numbers in Australia close to 15% in just one year, perversely leading to increased ASIC levies for the remaining advisers to cover ASIC costs. https://www.moneymanagement.com.au/news/financial-planning/asic-levy-increase-due-declining-adviser-numbers
These costs must, of course, be passed on to consumers. But the real impacts will not be on the relatively wealthy clients that continue to get financial advice, it will be borne by the many consumers that can no longer receive good advice. They will struggle in an increasingly complex financial world. A divide will widen between the more literate and numerate who will be able to DIY and those who lack the skills or inclination who will tend to lead more financially precarious lives due to lower savings rates and fewer options. Access to advice must always be a consideration.
I have not checked because my concern is mainly New Zealand, not Australia, but perhaps one of my readers who is more across that jurisdiction can pull the relevant impact statement that was inevitably prepared and find what was said at the time. Did they assume a 15% decline and believe the change worth it? Or did they underestimate the impact of change?