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
L1 Group sells Platinum's responsible entity to Equity Trustees
L1 Group has offloaded Platinum Investment Management Limited (PIML) to Equity Trustees (EQT), handing over the responsible entity (RE) role for the Platinum funds while keeping investment management in-house.
LGT poaches Koda Capital's top-rated adviser
LGT Wealth Management has poached Koda Capital's 2025 top-rated adviser and partner Frank Macindoe.
CareSuper rejigs beneficiary nominations, investment options
CareSuper has introduced several changes to its investment options and beneficiary nominations.
Fortnum pays $1.35m to settle ASIC lawsuit
Fortnum Private Wealth will pay a penalty of $1.35 million and ASIC's costs to resolve legal proceedings against the firm over a cyber governance matter which occurred between April 2021 and May 2023.
Further Reading
Products
Expert Feed
When geopolitics becomes a portfolio risk
Geopolitics is back - again - and Australian investors can no longer treat it as distant background noise.
Does association membership still matter?
With all the changes the advice sector has experienced in recent years, such as regulatory reform and increased education and professional standards ...
Digital assets and where they stand in 2026
So far in 2026 digital assets have captured the headlines largely for the wrong reasons, but that doesn't tell the full story.
Rethinking default design in a changing market environment
The evolution underway in the US DC system highlights the value of periodically reassessing default design assumptions.
Featured Profile
Cliff Man
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ETF SHARES MANAGEMENT LTD
ETF SHARES MANAGEMENT LTD
ETF Shares chief executive Cliff Man spent his career automating, building and challenging established systems. Now, he is betting that Australia's ETF market has room for something different. Vinny Vucago writes.
The Financial Standard podcast Tune in each week as we discuss the latest developments in Australia's wealth management industry. |  |
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.