ASIC clarifies IFA definitions, extends SoA deadlineBY JAMIE WILLIAMSON | TUESDAY, 27 JUN 2017 12:01PMASIC has stated its position on the use of restricted terms relating to the independence of financial advisers. Related News |
Editor's Choice
Former super fund adviser receives permanent ban
|A financial adviser, who worked at several major superannuation funds, has been permanently banned after he tried to persuade clients to transfer their retirement savings into a bank account he controlled.
Advisers should leverage US tech blueprint: SIAA panel
|While the US is at the forefront of financial advisers leveraging the best technology available, Australia's advice industry cannot be left behind and should learn from the blueprint it has laid out, investment experts told the Stockbrokers and Investment Advisers Association (SIAA) Conference this ...
Australian Food Super closes failed investment option
|Australian Food Super, previously known as the Australian Meat Industry Superannuation Trust, is closing its Shares product, which failed last year's Your Future, Your Super test.
Pacific Current sells stake in investment firm to Goldman Sachs
|Pacific Current Group has sold a portion of its interest in a US-based investment firm for US$35.2 million.
Products
Featured Profile
Robert De Dominicis
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
GBST HOLDINGS LIMITED
GBST HOLDINGS LIMITED
It was during a family sojourn to the seaside town of Pescara, Italy, Rob DeDominicis first laid eyes on what would become the harbinger of his future. Andrew McKean writes.
Seriously? So if I own my business and I'm not owned by a financial service product provider nor am I owned by a vertically integrated business but I receive commissions, then I am in breach of the Act.
Please can someone explain in plain english how the receipt of a commission then makes my business aligned and or not independently owned.
All this info is in our FSG. How is it misleading?
ASIC want a clear definition of what independent means. Try this: If you receive revenues other than client fees you are conflicted or could be seen as conflicted.
Why don't you just rebate any commissions you receive to the client? Many advisers are doing this now.
It's amazing, isn't it. If you are not institutionally owned you cannot say you are not institutionally owned because section 923A says you cannot use the words "independent, impartial or unbiased".
Does it follow that "institutionally owned" means you are dependent, partial and biased? I think it must.
I am staying out of it other than to advise all advisers to not poke the bear in the eye and to not use any potentially offensive words. There are plenty of other words to use, and life is too short to quibble.