ASIC FASEA submission asked for ethical dilemma examples
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) asked the Financial Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) to consider including ethical dilemma examples to understand the meaning of “inappropriate personal advantage” in regards to the code of ethics Standard 3.
Money Management obtained a copy of the ASIC submission that, at the time of writing, was still unable to be accessed on the FASEA website.
The submission matched material Money Management obtained earlier in the year via a Parliamentary Committee that said further guidance about the standard’s scope in the form of examples would encourage improved behaviour by financial advisers.
On Standard 3 ASIC said: “We encourage FASEA to consider including an example of an ethical dilemma involving a breach of the code that does not involve a clear breach of the law. We think that this would better assist in understanding the meaning of ‘inappropriate personal advantage’ in Standard 3.
“In addition, we encourage FASEA to provide more context in relation to the situation in the example in the second dot point in paragraph 38. For example, it would be helpful if FASEA could state more specifically how the financial adviser’s duty to one client conflicts with their duty to their other client.”
Recommended for you
As larger Australian Financial Services licensees continue to expand their reach in an increasingly expensive industry to operate, how do smaller firms ensure they stay relevant and efficient?
HUB24 has added almost 600 advisers in the 2025 financial year as the platform capitalises on opportunities presented in wealth management.
Wealth Architects has acquired a Cairns-based advice practice as it seeks to expand its national advice presence.
While the overall gender wage gap has decreased slightly, the Financy Women’s Index reveals the gap has widened for employees in the financial and insurance services sector.
