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
APRA investigating Diversa's executive compensation
|APRA has commenced an investigation into if Diversa's executive remuneration decisions were made in accordance with prudential standards and trustees' duties under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act.
Kudu continues Australian expansion with fresh investment
|Kudu Investment Management has acquired a minority stake in a Sydney-based financial advisory business mere days after an identical transaction with Drummond Capital Partners.
Apex takes on Mercer's NZ fund admin business
|Apex Group has expanded its presence in New Zealand, agreeing to onboard Mercer New Zealand's fund administration operations as part of its broader growth strategy across Australasia.
Aware Super ups stake in retirement village asset
|Aware Super has increased its ownership in Keyton, Australia's largest owner and operator of retirement villages, to 75% by acquiring Lendlease's interest of 25.1%.
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.