ASIC acknowledges conflicts in vertical integration
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has acknowledged that the vertical integration of financial services organisations gives rise to conflicts of interest because of the cohabitation of product manufacturers, distributors and advisers.
However ASIC deputy chairman, Peter Kell has also pointed to benefits flowing from a vertically integrated model, not least the ability of major, vertically integrated organisations to provide compensation when things go on.
At the same time, ASIC chairman, Greg Medcraft admitted that there were limitations to the effectiveness of professional indemnity insurance when it came to ensuring investors were compensated for bad advice.
Giving evidence before a Parliamentary Joint Committee, Kell said there were positives and negatives with respect to vertical integration.
"In terms of changes if we were to move away from that model: that would help address one of the issues that continually comes up around vertical integration, and that is the conflicts of interest that are inherent in a model where you have product manufacturers, distributors and advisers," he said.
"On the other hand, there are some benefits to vertical integration as well. I mentioned earlier, for example, the number of unpaid disputes at FOS (Financial Ombudsmand Service) involving financial planners. None of them involve vertically integrated companies, because they have the money behind them to ultimately pay if something goes wrong," Kell said.
He said that if changes were to be considered it might therefore be necessary to consider remediation of the compensation framework, something which prompted Medcraft to suggest that PI insurance had "some distinct limitations".
"PI…is at its weakest when it is most needed—that is, when you have multiple claims coming through at a single point in time," he said.
Recommended for you
As the industry navigates the fallout from recent product failures, two major AFSLs have detailed their APL selection process and relationship with research houses, warning a selection error could “destroy” a licensee.
The impending retirement of financial advisers in their 50s could see the profession face significant succession challenges over the coming decade and younger advisers may not be the answer.
With a third of AFSLs being solo advisers, how can they navigate key person risk and ensure they are still attractive propositions for buyers when it comes to their succession planning?
A quarter of advisers who commenced on the FAR within the last two years have already switched licensees or practices, adding validity to practice owners’ professional year (PY) concerns.
