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
UniSuper outage continues, no cause identified
The super fund plans to begin restoring services later this week, though chief executive Peter Chun has told members the root cause of the outage remains unknown.
Australian Retirement Trust wraps up AvSuper merger
Australian Retirement Trust (ART) has completed its merger with AvSuper after the two super funds formalised negotiations in February 2023.
ASIC clamps down on advisers, trustees cold calling
Financial advisers, licensees, and superannuation trustees are facing the ire of ASIC after an investigation found they are profiting from boiler room tactics that convince members to switch funds.
FSC launches digital advice group
The Financial Services Council (FSC) continues to expand into financial advice by taking on a digital advice association that flagged its formation one year ago.
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.