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
The top investment funds over the past year
The top-performing investment funds for the year ending March 31 have been announced, with all being ETFs focused on international equities.
AFCA finds more Dixon Advisory victims
The Australian Financial Complaints Authority added 544 more Dixon Advisory-specific victims to total 2492 complaints at the end of April, which will further exacerbate the levy financial advisers must pay.
Senior Cbus investment manager exits
Cbus' head of total portfolio management has left the fund, while a former JANA executive has joined its infrastructure team.
Quality of retirement does not depend on super balance: Bragg
The Senate Economics Committee has released its interim report into using super for housing.
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.
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?