The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has signalled another major exercise which will drill down on “a large number of advice files” at the same time as other projects examining general advice and the training of bank staff and others handling basic banking products.
The focus has been revealed in the regulator’s latest Corporate Plan which references a project examining the effectiveness of measures to improve the quality of advice.
It said this would involve “assisting Treasury to implement the Financial Services Royal Commission recommendation to review the effectiveness of measures implemented by Government, regulators and financial services entities to improve the quality of advice”.
“This will include scoping and commencing the work (which will involve a large number of advice file reviews).”
The regulator said it would also be reviewing Regulatory Guide 146 dealing with training of financial product advisers and assessing what training standards applied to individuals providing general advice, or personal advice on basic banking products, general insurance, and consumer credit insurance, to retail clients.
Comments
More chest beating
Is there any chance at all that we could possibly wait until we have finished all our study and the exam? Do these people realise the pressure we are all under at the moment, all these new costs and levies, paying for study, taking time off to study and worrying about losing clients due to this, this do or die exam, now we can expect a knock on the door at anytime on top of that, talk about twisting the knife. They must really hate us. Its like some sort of horrible experiment, see how long it takes us all to crack.
the plan is to get rid of financial advisers altogether
Where is the evidence for this proposition? This is fake news.
But there is a strategy is get rid of incompetent and dishonest advisors. This should be endorsed and supported as the means to improve the quality and professionalism of the overall body of financial advisors.
The evidence is chronic over regulation. Everyone agrees that better regulation was needed to protect consumers, and incompetent & dishonest advisers need to go. But the regulation that has been introduced (with even more to come) goes way beyond what is necessary. There is massive duplication and inconsistency. The costs of it all are exorbitant. Chronic over regulation is driving good advisers out of business and is ultimately harming consumers.
Why would the government do this? Because they are looking after the interests of product providers that sell dodgy products via advertising. They don't want consumers to get professional advice. The disgraceful "legislated collusion" O'Dwyer gave the FSC, to make it harder for consumers to get insurance advice and divert them into junk insurance, is a clear example of the government's true allegiances and ultimate intentions.
what is fake, IS YOU!
And this is your best?
why are you here? shouldn't you be running a hedge fund with your ph.d in mathematics turd?
This your best? You can do better.
still no mention of drilling down on intra fund advice in the industry fund sector?
No. Not obsessed about intra-fund advice like others. Larger fish to fry.
I did need them to be obsessed, I just need them to actually give it some consideration, something they have not done to date. Lets imagine going back to the MTAA scandal. Let's imagine they had an adviser force at the time. Let's imagine some of those advisers knew how bad things were going in the fund. Let's imagine they had mortgages and kids etc and employer pressure over use of the fund. Does this not ring as a bad or poor consumer outcome? Is this not a clear conflict?
Fee for no service in Union Funds? Personal Advice sold as General Advise in Industry Funds?
Hedware, if Intra Fund advice and associated fee for no service and completely conflicted advice is not on your radar, perhaps you have what might be called an "Agenda". Where is it you work?
Cross selling was and still is to some extent rife in banking, retail funds and financial services and the rest. There’s plenty of evidence that customers were pushed into let’s say bank products by bank staff and advisors and pushed into financial products that were less advantageous to competing products. The financial advice industry was complicit in these practices. But you never include these practices in your allegations of intra-fund advice.
I am against this practice whether it is in the for-profit or not-for-profit sectors. Ultimately clients should get the best advice and best opportunities to maximise their retirement nest egg. To some extent I am against the default ‘growth’, ‘balanced’, etc portfolio offerings as they disguise cross selling to clients.
Add new comment