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
Superannuation assets inch to nearly $4.8tn
Total superannuation assets hit nearly $4.8 trillion in the last financial year, marking a 9% rise, namely driven by the rise of industry funds.
Australian instos inject $705m into Nuveen strategy
Brighter Super and JANA are among a group of Australian institutional investors who have injected $705 million into Nuveen's Arcmont Asset Management European direct lending strategy.
Macquarie names new wrap platform lead
Macquarie has appointed a new head of wrap platform after Michelle Weber stepped down from the role following a 13-year tenure at the company.
Invesco APAC head to retire
Invesco Asia Pacific chief Andrew Lo will retire from the global asset manager next March after 32 years with the firm, closing out more than three decades spent building its presence and partnerships across the region.
Further Reading
Products
Featured Profile

Liza McDonald
HEAD OF RESPONSIBLE INVESTMENT
AWARE SUPER
AWARE SUPER
Liza McDonald would have you believe her path from a legal secretary to the head of responsible investment at Aware Super was a matter of good fortune. Her career says otherwise. 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.