FPA supports ASIC independence definitionBY KARREN VERGARA | FRIDAY, 30 JUN 2017 12:47PMThe Financial Planning Association of Australia is voicing its support for ASIC's definitions on independent financial advice. Related News |
Editor's Choice
Iress says its GitHub user space was breached
Iress has disclosed to shareholders that its private user space with software code repository GitHub was subjected to a cyber-attack over the weekend.
Federal Court rejects two CBA class actions
The Federal Court shut down two class actions against Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) relating to anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CTF).
Chalmers makes bold inflation prediction
The Federal Treasurer says he believes inflation will come back into the Reserve Bank's target range sooner than predicted.
UniSuper restores online services, app
UniSuper's systems are back online, after close to two weeks of disruption.
Products
Featured Profile
Robert De Dominicis
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
GBST HOLDINGS LIMITED
GBST HOLDINGS LIMITED
It was during a family sojourn to the seaside town of Pescara, Italy, Rob DeDominicis first laid eyes on what would become the harbinger of his future. Andrew McKean writes.
No matter what ASIC would like the terms to mean, "non-aligned" and "non-institutionally owned" are statements of fact, not subject to interpretation. Worse still, ASIC has suggested that they will police the use of "similar terms". So, where's the line? Is "privately owned" off limits too?
I would love to see a prosecution of use of the terms survive a legal challenge.
By all means, anyone with a vested interest in a transaction should have to declare such, but there are more than two licensee models in the marketplace. Lumping all other than those with a pure fee-only offer into the same category as internal bank run houses does not serve the interests of the consumer. It DOES, interestingly, suit the big institutions quite nicely. Coincidence?