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
Another MWL adviser banned over Shield collapse
ASIC has banned another MWL Financial adviser Nicole Niu from providing financial services, controlling an entity that carries on a financial services business or performing any function involved in the carrying on of a financial services business for a period of five years.
Warakirri, LongView launch home equity strategy
Warakirri Asset Management and LongView are partnering to bring a new shared equity co-investment fund exclusively to wholesale investors seeking access to Australia's residential property market.
Swedish PE giant sweetens offer bid for Perpetual
EQT AB has sweetened its offer bid for Perpetual, after the financial services firm rejected the unsolicited takeover bid from the Swedish private equity giant earlier in the month.
Igneo opens private infrastructure strategy to advised investors
Igneo Infrastructure Partners has launched its first private infrastructure fund for advised and wholesale investors in Australia.
Products
Featured Profile

Blake Briggs
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
FINANCIAL SERVICES COUNCIL
FINANCIAL SERVICES COUNCIL
Since becoming chief executive, Blake Briggs has renewed the Financial Services Council's influence, expanded the membership base, and strengthened its policy and advocacy credentials. Karren Vergara 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.