Advisely PartnerPhil - thank you for responding. Forum postings are not the best place to demonstrate nuance - so I appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt in your response to my comments.
The one comment I can make briefly and succinctly - is I wonder if we disagree about the CSLR? My view is that the underlying premise behind the entire scheme is wrong. My belief is the scheme shouldn't exist not that its funding model is wrong.
I will rely on an analogy - would our friends at TAL take on a(n unlimited) risk without first underwriting the risk? Or would my PI insurer?
What the CSLR does is to effectively make the financial planner act as "a Name" at Lloyds - but without an Underwriter to help them assess the risk, or the ability to refuse an acceptable risk. The CLSR acts to accept risks in the same way an insurance company does or a friendly society used to - but if the CLSR was an insurance company then the risk is transferred to an incorporated entity where the shareholders accept the potential liabilities or if the CSLR was an old-fashioned friendly society - like co-operative the risk accepted is limited to the extent of the pool of capital available - but it's not. It combines the worse features of both structures. So, in effect, the CSLR exposes "the Names" behind the scheme (the decent financial planner) to the moral hazard of unassessed insureds.
BTW, on a human level, of course, I care about the people facing ruin. It is simply I am sure if you ask The Government (any of them!) financial planners were responsible for the Punic Wars, the loss of the British Empire, and for any & all the Collingwood Grand Final victories. I know we agree that "we" need to stop the poor treatment of the financial planner by Governments that use them to fund what they feel are "community obligations".
TL/DR ? The CSLR is fundamentally flawed because of the existence of the unavoidable moral hazard placed on the scheme because it covers everybody without assessment.
Phil - you don't need to respond. You can file this conversation under either C for crank or G for grumpy.
