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
ASX profits slump as ASIC inquiry costs bite
|The ASX reported a fall in its statutory net profit driven by $51.1 million in legal costs and penalties as a result of settling legal proceedings with ASIC.
AI advice boom highlights urgent need for affordable advice: SMC
|Australians are increasingly turning to artificial intelligence to understand their superannuation and retirement options, but new research suggests many remain reluctant to rely on AI alone for major financial decisions.
Space, semiconductor ETFs worst performers in July
|Space-related and semiconductor exchange traded funds (ETFs) were among the worst performers in the month of July after delivering exceptional gains earlier in the year.
The SILC Group brings US wholesale fund Down Under
|The SILC Group has helped introduce a Denver-based investment manager to the local wholesale market with a new global equities fund.
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.