The Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) came under intense pressure to make public the industry submissions around its code of conduct and now the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) is being urged to make public the many submissions filed as part of its affordable advice review.
With Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) commissioner, Danielle Press, having revealed that the regulator has received over 480 submissions as part of its review process, advisers have told Money Management that they believe those submissions should be made public before the regulator moves to produce its final report.
While ASIC has a strong track-record of making submissions to its inquiries public, it usually does so only after it has conducted its consultation processes and published the resultant report.
Calls for the earlier release of submissions have come amid financial adviser concern that ASIC is focussed on achieving the objective of more affordable advice via the use of limited advice and an extension of intra-fund advice.
Association of Financial Advisers (AFA) general manager, policy and professionalism, Phil Anderson, said that his organisation had filed its submission with ASIC and had read a number of other submissions and was looking forward to participating in the resultant consultative processes.
While calling for submissions late last year ASIC made clear that they represented only the first stage in process.
The regulator said it would be holding industry roundtables in the first quarter of this year to discuss the issues raised in the submissions.
However, advisers said that the roundtables were not always easily accessible and that making submissions would be useful in encouraging discussion amongst a wider range of participants.
Comments
ASIC has already poisoned the process. They preemptively blamed licencees. Then surprise, surprise, Danielle Press came out this week blaming licensees by quoting one submission. She has also stated that ASIC would like to see one-off, intra-fund style advice rules relaxed, while keeping draconian rules for ongoing advice (which she derogatorily calls 'the long tail'). This is a stitch up waiting to happen. All submissions need to be released immediately or at the very least handed over to an independent body for scrutiny.
You're a quality poster on here Giggity.
My concern for my own submission is that a large chunk of my submission revolves around abolishing the AFSL system. Whilst I don't trust ASIC, I also don't trust the dealer groups and I don't really want my submission out there in the public with my name on it.
Time to become self licensed Iron Mike. It will put you out of reach of dealer group retribution. And although self licensing is not the same as abolishing the AFSL system, it does solve about 80% of the AFSL system problems by removing dealer groups.
The AFSL system would be vastly improved if ARs and CARs were removed, so that all advisers were required to be either self licensed, or direct employees of a licensee.
Another guaranteed ASIC & Industry Fund Stitch up.
1) Hidden Commission Intra Fund Advice to expand to whatever Industry Super want. No Fact Finds, No FARSEA, No BID, No FDS or Optins, just plain SALES of Vertically Integrated Super by Vertically Owned Advisers. ASIC says all good.
2) Real Advisers, let's keep loading up the BS REGS trust and DUMP DUMP and DUMP more BS REGS onto Real Advisers. How about a total second Layer of AFSL compliance at Admin Platform Level = YES SIR that will massively increase RED TAPE and BS REGS COTS, great says ASIC.
What a joke are ASIC
The Federal Gov has specifically stated that it wants ASIC to concentrate on applying Corps law and not be involved in policy design. Why are ASIC even involved in advice affordability issues?
If you took the time to write it and submit it then you should be confident and stand behind your ideas and beliefs
Personally I think they should publish all of them to ensure that the right approach is shown based on the 480 ideas and not a few picked out that suit ASIC. Or the Industry funds
ASIC is corrupt, I wouldn't put it past them to have 'sponsored' another 'independent' submission to itself by some uni to support the biased approach it is already taking between real planners and union super funds.
I'd be happy to have my submission published, with it's strident criticism of the AFSL system and questioning if ASIC has even read the Code of Ethics.
But I get that others may not - most other processes allow those submitting to allow their submission to be published, or kept anonymous, so that would be a good option here.
Add new comment