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
Capstone joins forces with PictureWealth to form $22bn FUA planning network
PictureWealth Group has inked a landmark deal with national advice licensee Capstone Financial Planning, forming a combined business with 360 financial advisers and $22 billion in funds under advice.
Mercer reviews small caps, Aussie equities mandates
Mercer Investments Australia has overhauled the fund manager line-up across its Australian equities and small-caps funds following an investment review, retaining some incumbents and awarding fresh mandates at the same time.
HESTA launches campaign around super tax benefits
The super fund is launching 'Super Saturday' to help those that are missing out on the advantage from super tax benefits ahead of the end of the financial year.
RBA on hold, rate cuts expected
The Reserve Bank of Australia kept interest rates on hold at its June meeting with economists suggesting the next move could be a rate cut.
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.