Add new comment

So without any hesitation at all Danielle Press reverts immediately to a threat of further reductions in commission as the integral reason why advice will be deemed either appropriate or otherwise.
This is a disgrace.
This is simply a case of ASIC pushing to achieve their original intention of forcing either level commission or nil commission remuneration for Risk Insurance advice on which they failed to achieve through the LIF process and off the back of their conflicted ASIC 413 Report.
On the back of the incredibly damaging impact to clients and the industry from the banning of grandfathered commissions, ASIC immediately then deliver another major threat to the viability of any small to medium Risk Advice practice.
The intention to destroy this industry and remove as many experienced, ethical and quality advisers from practicing is unheard of.
ASIC have created a position of gross bias in regard to their approach.
They have created a position of complete lack of trust in their process and a general opinion they will create the data necessary to support their recommendations.
They are methodically destroying an industry that does not deserve the relentless, persistent and unfair scrutiny.
This is now clearly grossly discriminatory.
We now have Danielle Press at ASIC and a Board Member of Robo advice business, Six Park.
This is a quote directly from the Six Park CEO in July, 2018 after Danielle Press was appointed.
" Danielle has a very nuanced understanding of how robo-advice complements the wealth management landscape in Australia".....
" Danielle said she was excited about joining Six Park and sees huge potential in robo-advice as part of Australia's wealth management landscape, particularly in the climate created by the Banking Royal Commission"
" Robo-advice REMOVES THE CONFLICT THAT EXISTS in many forms of financial advice" , she said.
" Six Park is LEADING THE WAY in giving Australian investors a trustworthy , professional alternative to that conflicted model, which is coming under increased pressure."
So, we have an ASIC Commissioner who has publicly stated that the type of advice she wholly supports and the type of advice provided by an organisation she is a board member of removes the conflicts that exist.
How on earth can this be acceptable and not treated as a biased position and how on earth is this not considered to be conflicted.?
How can an ASIC Commissioner be passing judgment when their other role is to enhance the business of a competitor financial services model ?
Is Josh Frydenberg ok with this?
What type of country are we now living in ?