ASIC ties breach reporting to professionalism
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has tied more scrupulous adherence to breach reporting to the underlying professionalism of the financial services industry.
In an address to a banking and wealth summit in Sydney, ASIC chairman, James Shipton tied breach reporting to professional conduct.
“Our regulatory system was not designed as a police state, and this is deliberate,” he said. “Instead, our system was designed on the premise that participants should also do their part to ensure the system operates appropriately.”
“I think ‘professionalism’ is a good description of the role that is expected of participants. One example of this is breach reporting. At its core, this requirement relies on participants identifying breaches quickly and reporting them quickly,” Shipton said.
He said breach reporting was a core part of the regulatory system that allows ASIC to identify both individual breaches as well as broader themes, so that it could respond appropriately.
“Accordingly, adherence to the spirit of this requirement is as important, if not more so, than adherence to the letter of the obligation,” Shipton said.
“Let me be clear: Our call for greater levels of professionalism is not an abrogation of our important regulatory role. We stand ready to use, and enhance, all the regulatory tools available to us – including enforcement and regulatory intervention when necessary,” he said.
“The point is that industry, and the people within it, need to do more to support the proper functioning of the financial system. They need to take more of a leadership role in promoting professionalism,” the ASIC chairman said.
“For example, the industry itself, working with standard setting and professional bodies, could promote and perhaps even require professionalism within their sectors. They could, like a number of professional bodies, regulate and, if necessary, sanction participants for conduct that does not live up to their own professional standards or community expectations.”
Recommended for you
As the industry navigates the fallout from recent product failures, two major AFSLs have detailed their APL selection process and relationship with research houses, warning a selection error could “destroy” a licensee.
The impending retirement of financial advisers in their 50s could see the profession face significant succession challenges over the coming decade and younger advisers may not be the answer.
With a third of AFSLs being solo advisers, how can they navigate key person risk and ensure they are still attractive propositions for buyers when it comes to their succession planning?
A quarter of advisers who commenced on the FAR within the last two years have already switched licensees or practices, adding validity to practice owners’ professional year (PY) concerns.
