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
Jo Townsend named chief executive of NZ Super
One of Australia's most experienced superannuation executives will take the helm of New Zealand's sovereign wealth fund, following Matt Whineray's departure late last year.
QMV Legal folds, managing partner to launch new firm
Novigi will wind up QMV Legal as its managing partner Jonathan Steffanoni embarks on launching a new specialist superannuation law firm.
Best super fund products revealed
The best superannuation fund products, based on factors such as investment performance, insurance, fees, and organisational strength, have been named.
Platinum bleeds $1.4bn in outflows
Platinum Investment Management flags it will lose at least $1.4 billion as a partial redemption from institutional clients over the next month, translating to an $18 million hit to revenue.
Products
Featured Profile
Fiona Mann
HEAD OF LISTED EQUITIES AND ESG
BRIGHTER SUPER
BRIGHTER SUPER
Brighter Super head of listed equities and ESG Fiona Mann was shaped by a childhood steeped in military-like discipline and global nomadism. Andrew McKean 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.