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 advisers risk losing two-thirds of FUA during the $3.5 trillion wealth transfer, two co-founders underscore why fostering trust with the next generation is vital to retaining intergenerational wealth.
As advisers seek greater insights into FSCP determinations, what are the various options considered by the panel and can a decision be appealed?
Amid the current financial adviser shortage, advice firm Link Wealth is looking to expand its financial literacy program for high school students across the country.
TAL Risk Academy has updated its range of ethics courses to help financial advisers meet their CPD requirements following adviser feedback, including interpreting FSCP determinations.
