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
ASX to rejig corporate governance framework
The ASX is looking to modernise eight core corporate governance principles, which include rejigging executive remuneration and board composition, to make them fit-for-purpose in the current environment in which ASX-listed entities operate in.
Rest calls for better alignment in default options
Rest conducted a survey addressing concerns around the ambiguity of standardised investment options and product labels.
KPMG finds new chief executive
The embattled consulting firm has named a new chief executive, choosing to promote from within after former chief executive Andrew Yates stepped down in June in the wake of the whistleblower scandal.
HSBC appoints structured finance chief
HSBC Australia and New Zealand have appointed a former Deutsche Bank executive as head of structured finance.
Further Reading
Products
Featured Profile

Blake Briggs
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
FINANCIAL SERVICES COUNCIL
FINANCIAL SERVICES COUNCIL
Since becoming chief executive, Blake Briggs has renewed the Financial Services Council's influence, expanded the membership base, and strengthened its policy and advocacy credentials. Karren Vergara 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.