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
Adviser numbers plateau
The number of financial advisers in Australia appears to be stabilising at 15,602, as Count and AMP Financial Planning continue to hold the lion's share.
Praemium loses $700m due to adviser transitions
Praemium reported total net outfows from its Powerwrap scheme has reached $700 million over the past three quarters.
Small cap investors told to 'stop whinging'
Forager's chief investment officer has read the riot act to investors.
Adam Blumenthal ordered to pay $850k
Blumenthal is also banned from managing corporations for five years.
Further Reading
Sponsored by | Where do advisers invest their time?The stage 3 tax cuts have sparked discussions on bracket creep. Implementing a tax-effective investment strategy is crucial now more than ever. |
Sponsored by | Quality and Yield. A Powerful combination.With central bank rates seemingly peaked, investors are not awaiting yield increases. We're bucking the trend with investment rates at decadal highs |
Sponsored by | Why it could be a good time to be a growth contrarianGrowth-style companies are in vogue, but you may need to think outside the box to ensure you don't overpay. |
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.
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?