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
ASIC cancels AFSL of Australian Fiduciaries
ASIC has cancelled the Australian financial services licence (AFSL) of Queensland-based Australian Fiduciaries, which is currently in liquidation.
Treasury expects regulators to do the heavy lifting
Treasury has released new Statements of Expectations for APRA and ASIC, with an emphasis on how the regulators should promote a more sustainable and secured financial ecosystem.
NGS Super names head of strategy
NGS Super has appointed a former ASFA committe member as head of strategy, as the fund aims to strengthen its retirement offering.
SS&C axes jobs, shifts roles offshore
US software services giant SS&C Technologies has slashed 170 Australian roles in the operations, technology and delivery teams.
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
Blake Briggs
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
FINANCIAL SERVICES COUNCIL
FINANCIAL SERVICES COUNCIL
Since becoming chief executive, Blake Briggs has renewed the Financial Services Council's influence, expanded the membership base, and strengthened its policy and advocacy credentials. Karren Vergara 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?