<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
	<title>Financial Standard Comments - Corporate super specialists ask Treasury for FoFA exemption</title>
	<description>The Corporate Super Specialists Alliance is in talks with Treasury after the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC ) refused to grant a no-action letter to corporate super specialists.</description>
	<link>https://www.financialstandard.com.au/feed/latest?story=33151320</link>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Jun 2013 17:37:13 +1000</lastBuildDate>
	<pubDate>Fri, 07 Jun 2013 17:37:13 +1000</pubDate>
	<language>en-AU</language>
	<copyright>Copyright 2026 Financial Standard</copyright>
	<ttl>5</ttl>
	<item>
		<title>Comment by Pavel D (n/a)</title>
		<link></link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
<p><p>The CSSA's website states that it endorses the Financial Planning Association (FPA's) six principles for financial planner remuneration. Given that the FPA are on board w/ the FoFA provisions, where does this leave this Association's claim for special treatment?</p>
<p>And, what breath-taking arrogance to suggest that only his organisation has the skill, expertise and knowledge to "fill the gaps in the market that FoFA will create". There are plenty of expert advisers that could very capably meet this requirements, and who's business models are FoFA ready and compliant.</p></p><p><a href="">Reply to article</a></p><p>For original story, <a href="">Click Here.</a></p>
]]></description>
		<dc:creator>Pavel D (n/a)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Jun 2013 17:37:13 +1000</pubDate>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>