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
IFM raises Atlas Arteria's bid, urges shareholders to accept
IFM Investors has raised its bid for Atlas Arteria to its maximum consideration of $5.10 per security, calling it the best and final offer in the absence of a competitive offer.
ASIC secures record $300m penalty over 'egregious' CFD misconduct
The Federal Court has imposed record penalties totalling more than $300 million against collapsed contracts for difference (CFD) issuer Union Standard International Group and two of its former authorised representatives.
ASX to pay $23m, admits misrepresentation over CHESS replacement
ASX has admitted that it misled and exposed market participants to financial risk in an announcement related to the delivery of the CHESS replacement project in early 2022, despite realising the delay would occur as early as 21 December 2021.
ACCC approves Magellan, Barrenjoey merger
The ACCC has greenlit the merger between Magellan Financial Group and Barrenjoey Capital Partners.
Products
Featured Profile

Brian Redican
CHIEF ECONOMIST
NEW SOUTH WALES TREASURY CORPORATION
NEW SOUTH WALES TREASURY CORPORATION
What makes an economist an economist? TCorp chief economist Brian Redican reflects on over three decades of navigating Australia's economic cycles. 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.