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 raises Atlas Arteria's bid, urges shareholders to accept
IFM Investors has raised its bid for Atlas Arteria to its maximum consideration of $5.10 per security, calling it the best and final offer in the absence of a competitive offer.
ASIC secures record $300m penalty over 'egregious' CFD misconduct
The Federal Court has imposed record penalties totalling more than $300 million against collapsed contracts for difference (CFD) issuer Union Standard International Group and two of its former authorised representatives.
ASX to pay $23m, admits misrepresentation over CHESS replacement
ASX has admitted that it misled and exposed market participants to financial risk in an announcement related to the delivery of the CHESS replacement project in early 2022, despite realising the delay would occur as early as 21 December 2021.
ACCC approves Magellan, Barrenjoey merger
The ACCC has greenlit the merger between Magellan Financial Group and Barrenjoey Capital Partners.
Products
Featured Profile

Brian Redican
CHIEF ECONOMIST
NEW SOUTH WALES TREASURY CORPORATION
NEW SOUTH WALES TREASURY CORPORATION
What makes an economist an economist? TCorp chief economist Brian Redican reflects on over three decades of navigating Australia's economic cycles. 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.