The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has claimed not to have a pre-determined compliance rate or test pass rate when it is undertaking advice reviews.
Defending its approach to Report 639 covering advice within superannuation, ASIC said its response to the advice review component within that report had been “commensurate with the concerns identified in that review”.
“While we found that 36% of files did not demonstrate full compliance with the best interests duty and related obligations, this was as a result of procedural, disclosure or record keeping deficiencies and did not indicate the member was at risk of suffering financial or non-financial detriment,” it said.
“A smaller subset of 15% of files indicated that the member was at risk of suffering financial or non-financial detriment.”
“ASIC does not have a pre-determined compliance rate or test pass rate. When ASIC undertakes advice reviews in its projects, it assesses the advice records for compliance and reports on the outcome of the assessment. Further work undertaken by ASIC as a result of the advice reviews depends on the nature and scale of concerns identified. For example, for files reviewed as part of REP 639 where there was an indication that the member was at risk of suffering financial or non-financial detriment, we engaged with the advice licensee about our expectation that they review the advice and where required, remediate those affected members,” the regulator said.
“We note that whether the law should be amended following an ASIC review, such as REP 413 and REP 639, is a policy matter for Government”.
Queensland Liberal backbencher, Bert Van Mannen had used the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Economics and Financial Services to question why ASIC had not used Report 639 to call for major reform of the superannuation advice sector.
“Does a 49% compliance rate pass the test? If so the 2021 ASIC review for life insurance advice delivers a better outcome. Why then would ASIC call for further reforms to life insurance commissions?”
Comments
Regulatory Capture Corruption from ASIC as per usual Bert.
It’s simply and very pre determined.
Anything Advisers do will be bad and require more BS Regs, costs and a guaranteed squeeze in one way or another on Adviser fees or the dreaded commissions.
Anything Industry Super does will be fine, You should ALL know by now Industry Super can do what ever the hell they like and ASIC will NEVER do anything against them.
Simple, pre determined, guaranteed ASIC outcomes, every time :-/
Correct they do not have a predetermined rate. Their intention is to fail as many files as possible, even for the most innocuous points. This way they can justify their existence, keep their funding, which they can then use in turn to pay the personal expenses of its internal staff.
ASIC need to be removed from these investigations. They use them to push their own ideological agenda. They target the research, cherry-pick the stats and use spin in their press releases. We need an independent body overseen by a panel of experienced, practicing financial planners. Peers judging peers. That is what other professions do. I've had a gut full of bureaucrats torching hard-working, honest financial planners whom their clients rate highly. Businesses have been destroyed, jobs have been trashed, costs have gone through the roof and advice is impossible to access except for the rich or those willing to use a fake adviser (ie. conflicted super fund sales rep). We are on track for a 50% decline in adviser numbers by the end of this year. ASIC have achieved their end game. It is time for this hopeless government who have aided and abetted ASIC to wake up to their wrongdoing and allow the financial planning sector to heal. As long as we have ASIC's foot on our throats the carnage will continue.
ASIC on regulating financial advisers and financial advice. this video sums it up nicely
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mU4SQ_JoK6w
And, asic know we love them too
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OyuBnWvWbE
it's true, the video is funny. but advisers have already spoken, 16% have walked away and there will be another huge drop before 1 Jan 2022 and each subsequent year to 2026.
what will ASIC say when they face a parliamentary enquiry when the adviser numbers are down to 5,000 and what will be their response.
i think we the advisers should submit this video as our submission.
haha so funny. love it.
Why do ASIC employees get Bonuses then???? of course they have KPIs they prob just call it a """"balance score card"""
I think KPI's can be defined many ways. It could be "Have you spent your budget?" This says nothing about the quality of work, or the results, just a pure financial number. But it is easy to monitor and totally useless.
Of course they don't have a pre-determined pass rate. That way, when 95% of files get a 90% score, they can make the pass rate 91%. :P
Yet more proof that ASIC IS CORRUPT
Royal commission into ASIC and FASEA is required ASAP!
So, the question here is surely "what action did ASIC take against the Advisers of the 15% of files where the Members were at risk of disadvantage? And just as importantly, where does the FASEA Code apply to these 15%?
Add new comment