FPA supports ASIC independence definitionBY KARREN VERGARA | FRIDAY, 30 JUN 2017 12:47PMThe Financial Planning Association of Australia is voicing its support for ASIC's definitions on independent financial advice.
Related News |
Editor's Choice
T. Rowe Price appoints local operations chief
|T. Rowe Price, the global asset manager with over US$1.3 trillion in assets under management, has appointed a regional operating chief who will relocate to Sydney from the London office.
Vanguard backs current performance test
|Vanguard has endorsed the current performance test methodology in a submission to Treasury, championing its effectiveness in eliminating underperforming investment options and improving member outcomes.
Sequoia chair steps down
|The chair of Sequoia Financial Group, John Larsen, has resigned from the position and his replacement has been appointed.
Court approves $16m DASS settlement
|The Federal Court has approved the settlement reached in the $16 million class action brought against Dixon Advisory & Superannuation Services (DASS) following a two-week delay.
Further Reading
Sponsored by | Where do advisers invest their time?The stage 3 tax cuts have sparked discussions on bracket creep. Implementing a tax-effective investment strategy is crucial now more than ever. |
Sponsored by | Quality and Yield. A Powerful combination.With central bank rates seemingly peaked, investors are not awaiting yield increases. We're bucking the trend with investment rates at decadal highs |
Sponsored by | Why it could be a good time to be a growth contrarianGrowth-style companies are in vogue, but you may need to think outside the box to ensure you don't overpay. |
Products
Featured Profile
Fiona Mann
HEAD OF LISTED EQUITIES AND ESG
BRIGHTER SUPER
BRIGHTER SUPER
Brighter Super head of listed equities and ESG Fiona Mann was shaped by a childhood steeped in military-like discipline and global nomadism. Andrew McKean writes.
No matter what ASIC would like the terms to mean, "non-aligned" and "non-institutionally owned" are statements of fact, not subject to interpretation. Worse still, ASIC has suggested that they will police the use of "similar terms". So, where's the line? Is "privately owned" off limits too?
I would love to see a prosecution of use of the terms survive a legal challenge.
By all means, anyone with a vested interest in a transaction should have to declare such, but there are more than two licensee models in the marketplace. Lumping all other than those with a pure fee-only offer into the same category as internal bank run houses does not serve the interests of the consumer. It DOES, interestingly, suit the big institutions quite nicely. Coincidence?