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
Australia, UK partner to procure well-regulated financial markets
Following its inaugural meeting in September 2025, the second UK-Australia Joint Financial Regulatory Forum took place this week, with Australia remaining vocal about placing greater emphasis on governance and asset valuation of private markets.
Count takes 30% stake in Brisbane advice firm
Count has agreed to acquire a 30% stake in Brisbane-based accounting and financial advice firm Apiary Financial, continuing its push to expand its equity partnership network while reporting stronger first-quarter earnings.
Audit quality continues to fall short: ASIC
The corporate regulator has called for improvements in audit quality and financial reporting after its latest surveillance found companies, including superannuation funds, are still not getting the fundamentals right.
ETFs entering 3.0 era: JPMAM
JPMAM believes thematic ETFs may become a thing of the past as actively managed ETFs become more prevalent.
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.