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
IFM continues global infra drive with appointment, acquisition
|IFM Investors head of infrastructure for North America will retire following an 18-year tenure, with the investment company simultaneously announcing the acquisition of a majority stake in a UK-based company from Canadian Pension Plan Investments and OMERS.
ART rolls out new investment technology platform
|Australian Retirement Trust (ART) has launched a new portfolio management system as the $375 billion superannuation fund strengthens its investment capabilities targeting further growth.
Advised cover faces claims data test
|Group superannuation insurance appears to outperform individual advised cover on some claim's measures, raising questions about the value of advice when it comes to protecting clients against disability.
Trustees drop the ball on advice fee oversight
|In line with the government's push to tighten the gap in oversight on financial advice fee deductions from super funds, a solution provider is observing a spike in trustees reaching out for expertise, but highlighted the move is not to assess the quality of advice provided.
Further Reading
Products
Featured Profile

David Sharpe
CHAIRMAN
FINANCIAL ADVICE ASSOCIATION AUSTRALIA
FINANCIAL ADVICE ASSOCIATION AUSTRALIA
A family man, business owner, cricket fanatic and financial adviser, David Sharpe has many facets. One of his biggest legacies, as he steps down as chair of the Financial Advice Association Australia, is leaving the profession stronger than he found it.







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.