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
AustralianSuper ups admin fees
|The $430 billion superannuation fund is increasing its administration fees for the first time since 2022.
Advice complaints see biggest increase in FY26: AFCA
|Despite only accounting for less than 10% of the total complaints lodged, investment and advice complaints have seen the steepest increase in FY26, data from AFCA shows.
BUSSQ ups insurance cover, costs
|BUSSQ members will see the cost of their death and TPD cover increase as the fund increases the level of default cover.
Apostle names new head of distribution
|Apostle Funds Management has named a new head of distribution shortly after securing its chief executive.
Videos
Brought to you by ![]()
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
Hugh Killen
MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURAL COMPANY LIMITED
AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURAL COMPANY LIMITED
For Hugh Killen, several life lessons came from spending time on pastoral properties stretching across northern New South Wales and South-West Queensland.
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.