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
Blackwattle takes over Quest Asset Partners
Blackwattle Investment Partners has swallowed up Australian equities manager Quest Asset Partners for an undisclosed sum.
Funds SA poaches Vision Super risk specialist
Funds SA will welcome a Vision Super executive to replace executive director, governance and strategy Tony Burrill, as he prepares for retirement following a seven-year tenure at the company.
Regal flags muted second-half performance fees
Regal Partners expects to recognise at least $122.7 million in fund performance fee revenue for calendar 2026, with market volatility and weaker investment performance limiting the prospect of further material fees in the second half.
Insignia chief draws 'hard line' on NCAs giving retirement advice
Insignia Financial chief executive Scott Hartley said he draws a hard line when it come to the new class of advisers (NCAs) giving retirement advice.
Further Reading
Products
Expert Feed
When geopolitics becomes a portfolio risk
Geopolitics is back - again - and Australian investors can no longer treat it as distant background noise.
Does association membership still matter?
With all the changes the advice sector has experienced in recent years, such as regulatory reform and increased education and professional standards ...
Digital assets and where they stand in 2026
So far in 2026 digital assets have captured the headlines largely for the wrong reasons, but that doesn't tell the full story.
Rethinking default design in a changing market environment
The evolution underway in the US DC system highlights the value of periodically reassessing default design assumptions.
Featured Profile
Fiona Macgregor
GROUP CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
TAL LIMITED
TAL LIMITED
Fiona Macgregor has risen through the ranks at TAL, taking the top job in 2024, but her life was touched by the insurance sector long before her tenure with the life insurer began. Eliza Bavin writes.
The Financial Standard podcast Tune in each week as we discuss the latest developments in Australia's wealth management industry. |  |
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.