ASIC clarifies rule around ‘independent’

27 June 2017
| By Mike |
image
image
expand image

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has obtained legal advice and clarified its position on the use of restricted terms relating to the independence of financial advisers.

The regulator now says that if a financial adviser does not receive any commissions or volume-based payments, or other gifts or benefits and has no conflicts of interest or influence from any product issuer, then they can describe themselves as being “independently owned”.

However, if the financial adviser does receive commissions or operates with conflicts of interest, then they will not be permitted to use the term “independently owned” or other like words or expressions.

Commenting on the clarified position, ASIC deputy chairman, Peter Kell said the independence of financial advisers was an important issue for consumers and investors, and might sway their decisions about their investments or their choice of adviser.

“Consumers must not be misled into believing that an adviser is independent and free from influence when that is not the case. This is why the Corporations Act puts strong conditions around the use of 'independent' and similar word and phrases,” he said.

Kell said ASIC acknowledged that there has been uncertainty in the financial advice industry about whether terms such as “independently-owned” and “non-aligned” were restricted terms under s923A and in light of that uncertainty, the regulator would provide a facilitative compliance period of six months so that advice firms that do not satisfy the conditions in s923A could change websites and documents to remove terms such as “independently owned”, “non-aligned” or “non-institutionally owned”.

The facilitative compliance period will not extend to contraventions of s923A where the specified restricted terms “independent”, “impartial”, and “unbiased” are used. ASIC considers that there has been no uncertainty about how s923A applies to these terms and ASIC will continue to take action against financial service providers for using these terms in breach of s923A.

Read more about:

AUTHOR

 

Recommended for you

 

MARKET INSIGHTS

sub-bg sidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

Ralph

How did the licensee not check this - they should be held to task over it. Obviously they are not making sure their sta...

19 hours 48 minutes ago
JOHN GILLIES

Faking exams and falsifying results..... Too stupid to comment on JG...

20 hours 15 minutes ago
PETER JOHNSTON- AIOFP

Must agree to disagree with you on this one Keith, with the Banks/Institutions largely out of advice now is the time to ...

20 hours 57 minutes ago

AustralianSuper and Australian Retirement Trust have posted the financial results for the 2022–23 financial year for their combined 5.3 million members....

9 months 3 weeks ago

A $34 billion fund has come out on top with a 13.3 per cent return in the last 12 months, beating out mega funds like Australian Retirement Trust and Aware Super. ...

9 months 1 week ago

The verdict in the class action case against AMP Financial Planning has been delivered in the Federal Court by Justice Moshinsky....

9 months 3 weeks ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND