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
FAAA says super trustees should stump up for CSLR
|The Financial Advice Association Australia (FAAA) has called on Treasury to cut the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort (CSLR) special levy on the advice sector to zero and for superannuation trustees to stump up for the scheme.
HESTA unveils new leaders for property, financial risk
|HESTA has named a pair of general managers, who will be joining the $107 billion super fund, joining from Aware Super and QIC.
ASIC issues more stop orders amid private credit crackdown
|ASIC has issued another stop order on a PDS offering units in three registered managed investment schemes.
Life CCC spots 10.6k breaches in FY26
|The Life Code Compliance Committee has published its FY26 annual report, which saw over 10,600 breaches by insurers with close to 30,000 customers affected.
Further Reading
Products
Featured Profile

Cliff Man
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ETF SHARES MANAGEMENT LTD
ETF SHARES MANAGEMENT LTD
ETF Shares chief executive Cliff Man spent his career automating, building and challenging established systems. Now, he is betting that Australia's ETF market has room for something different. Vinny Vucago 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.