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
Vanguard to acquire custodian Altruist
Vanguard will acquire custodian and investment platform Altruist in a bid to expand into the American independent financial adviser market.
FAAA pushes to expand NCA to financial advisers
Financial Advice Association Australia (FAAA) said it will advocate strongly to expand the scope of the New Class of Advisers' to all financial advisers, which will currently be limited to only superannuation funds and life insurers.
SMSFA appoints head of professional standards
The Self-Managed Super Fund Association (SMSFA) has appointed Keddie Waller as the head of professional standards.
UniSuper unlocks close to $15k for members moving into retirement
Eligible UniSuper members will receive a tax-free bonus of up to $14,700 when they move into retirement phase from October 1.
Further Reading
Products
Featured Profile

Liza McDonald
HEAD OF RESPONSIBLE INVESTMENT
AWARE SUPER
AWARE SUPER
Liza McDonald would have you believe her path from a legal secretary to the head of responsible investment at Aware Super was a matter of good fortune. Her career says otherwise. Riddhima Talwani 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.