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
An adviser has received a written reprimand from the Financial Services and Credit Panel after failing to meet his CPD requirements, the panel’s first action since June.
AMP has reported a 61 per cent rise in inflows to its platform, with net cash flow passing $1 billion for the quarter, but superannuation fell back into outflows.
Those large AFSLs are among the groups experiencing the most adviser growth, indicating they are ready to expand following a period of transition and stabilisation after the Hayne royal commission.
The industry can expect to see more partnerships in the retirement income space in the future, enabling firms to progress their innovation, according to a panel.
