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
Praemium's new leadership toughens earnings yardstick
Praemium's new leadership will be keeping a close eye on costs, with new chief executive Denis Orrock noting he will make sure the technology upgrade underway translates into stronger earnings and better returns for shareholders.
Australian Ethical FUM drops by $70m
Australian Ethical saw a net outflow of $100 million in its investment business in the first quarter of the financial year.
Perennial expands wholesale offer for pre-IPOs
Perennial Partners is launching a new strategy for wholesale investors to capitalise on global pre-IPO opportunities, requiring a minimum investment of $100,000.
Macquarie wealth investment chief to depart
Macquarie chief investment officer for wealth will take on a new role at a New Zealand-based investment management firm after serving in the position for close to three years.
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.