Update on FASEA code guidance on the wayBY ELIZABETH MCARTHUR | FRIDAY, 29 NOV 2019 2:42PMFinancial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority chief executive Stephen Glenfield has confirmed more guidance on the contested Code of Ethics is imminent. Related News |
Editor's Choice
Australian Ethical ups fees across most super options
Australian Ethical has increased fees across most of its superannuation investment options shortly after decreasing them earlier in the year.
Mall owners count cost as David Jones enters administration
Shopping centre owners Scentre Group and Vicinity Centres have almost $80 million a year in rent at stake after Australia's iconic David Jones went into voluntary administration following 188 years of trading.
Australian Unity executive to retire
A long-serving Australian Unity executive, who has been instrumental in developing of a $2.8 billion trust, is bidding farewell to the organisation after 25 years, as he prepares for retirement.
Instos lower active risk to 'eke out more alpha': Acadian
Large superannuation funds are reallocating from their passive books, and in some cases away from discretionary managers, and moving it into lower-risk systematic strategies, according to Acadian Asset Management (AAM).
Further Reading
Products
Expert Feed
Featured Profile

Jacqueline Fernley
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ARC POINT OCIO PTY LTD
ARC POINT OCIO PTY LTD
Jacqueline Fernley is a self-confessed nerd, a market animal and as of this year, her own boss. Riddhima Talwani writes.







As a senior Financial Planner of 25 years in the game. I am very concerned about possible future interpretations of the Adviser Code of Ethics. We need a crystal clear code that is in unison with the law that is passed by parliament. I don't think that Glenfield's responses to questions are very helpful, as he seems to be saying that it all about the "Vibe" of the code....I think that the Ethics Code enforces are going to have a field day with this in the future.
De Gori's comments about only needing guidance if there is ambiguity in the code are partly correct. He's either not a lawyer?or being disingenuous. A court will always look at the terms of the Code as directed and look at the Guidance, and particularly the Values which are *paramount* (remember). The bulk of the terminology used including "conflict of interest" are already defined in the common law. So, the courts aren't just going to interpret the Code in any way they want. The Values and objectives are all consistent with basic fiduciary concepts, so the level of uncertainty is really not as claimed.
As for FASEA only creating the Code and not enforcing it, all I can say is, GOOD, that follows a constitutional principle called "separation of powers"! Hardly a criticism of FASEA.