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
Former super fund adviser receives permanent ban
|A financial adviser, who worked at several major superannuation funds, has been permanently banned after he tried to persuade clients to transfer their retirement savings into a bank account he controlled.
Advisers should leverage US tech blueprint: SIAA panel
|While the US is at the forefront of financial advisers leveraging the best technology available, Australia's advice industry cannot be left behind and should learn from the blueprint it has laid out, investment experts told the Stockbrokers and Investment Advisers Association (SIAA) Conference this ...
Australian Food Super closes failed investment option
|Australian Food Super, previously known as the Australian Meat Industry Superannuation Trust, is closing its Shares product, which failed last year's Your Future, Your Super test.
Pacific Current sells stake in investment firm to Goldman Sachs
|Pacific Current Group has sold a portion of its interest in a US-based investment firm for US$35.2 million.
Products
Featured Profile
Robert De Dominicis
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
GBST HOLDINGS LIMITED
GBST HOLDINGS LIMITED
It was during a family sojourn to the seaside town of Pescara, Italy, Rob DeDominicis first laid eyes on what would become the harbinger of his future. Andrew McKean 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.