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
Treasury responds to Debelle's review into the AOFM
Treasury has responded to the Guy Debelle-led review into the Australian Office of Financial Management (AOFM), agreeing to all six recommendations.
Bravura ups guidance, reports earnings increase
Bravura Solutions informed investors cost discipline will protect its full year earnings result after a client migrated to a Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) early in the year.
MaxCap hires from Vanguard, AustralianSuper
MaxCap has welcomed two senior directors, including a portfolio manager from Australia's largest super fund, reporting to the recently named chief executive Kylie Robb.
Zenith snags mandate from Granite Bay
Granite Bay Private Wealth has selected Zenith Investment Partners to support their investment governance and due diligence.
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
Blake Briggs
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
FINANCIAL SERVICES COUNCIL
FINANCIAL SERVICES COUNCIL
Since becoming chief executive, Blake Briggs has renewed the Financial Services Council's influence, expanded the membership base, and strengthened its policy and advocacy credentials. Karren Vergara writes.
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.