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
Iress bets on AI as business transformation moves forward
|Iress is shifting its focus from business simplification to executing an ambitious artificial intelligence (AI)-driven product strategy that will help financial advisers slash work processes by nearly 40%.
Macquarie AM-led consortium finalises Qube takeover
|Macquarie Asset Management (MAM) and a consortium of global investors, including UniSuper and the family office of a Spanish billionaire, have completed their $11.7 billion acquisition of logistics and infrastructure giant Qube Holdings.
Alexis George takes on board appointment
|Former AMP chief executive Alexis George has taken on a new board position, five months after announcing her intention to retire.
CFS launches pension bonus
|Colonial First State (CFS) has launched new retirement solutions offering eligible members a one-off payment when moving from accumulation into retirement.
Further Reading
Products
Featured Profile

Andrew Gregory
CHIEF ADVICE OFFICER
UNISUPER
UNISUPER
After 25 years, Andrew Gregory remains motivated by the impact financial advice can have on Australians' lives. As UniSuper's chief advice officer, he is not slowing down on any of his current ambitions. Matthew Wai 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.