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
ASIC flags gaps in super fund valuations
|ASIC has called for stronger scrutiny of unlisted investments after finding persistent weakness in how some superannuation funds and auditors assess asset valuations, raising concerns about the accuracy of members' retirement balances.
IMF sees inflation above RBA target through 2027
|The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has projected Australia's inflation to ease to 3.1% in 2027 from 3.9% this year, leaving it outside the Reserve Bank of Australia's (RBA) target range of 2% to 3%.
Treasury consults shifting tax debts from victims to abusers
|Treasury is consulting on extending the powers of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) to strengthen its response to financial abuse.
Former adviser defies permanent banning orders
|Former financial adviser Ezzat Daniel Nesseim has defied ASIC's permanent banning orders and is in the process of being prosecuted.
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.