FASEA finally delivers on accessibility of code submissions

The Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) appears to have finally made public submissions relating to the formation of its adviser code of ethics, making good on claims by its chief executive officer, Stephen Glenfield, to a Senate Estimates Committee hearing.

However, one of the most important submissions, that from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), while listed on the FASEA website, cannot be opened.

The code of ethics submissions to FASEA appear to have gone public after Queensland Liberal Senator, Amanda Stoker last Wednesday complained that it would be impossible determine why the authority changed Standard 3 of the code in the absence of all relevant submissions being made public on the authority’s web site.

Related News:

Stoker asked Glenfield why, given that FASEA had the ability to publish links to the submissions, they were not available on the web site, with the FASEA CEO claiming the submissions were available.

“I see that you now have that functionality, and you have released the submissions that you received in response to the ‘Financial Planners and Advisers Code of Ethics 2019 Guidance’ document that you issued in October 2019, however you have still not released the submissions that you received on the consultation exercise that led to the finalisation of the code of ethics.”

“It is now a year later, and these submissions have still not been released and we are all still none the wiser as to why you made that significant change to Standard 3 prior to it being issued in February last year.  Why haven’t these submissions on the code of ethics been released?” Stoker asked.

When Money Management checked the FASEA web site on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday last week the submissions did not appear to have been made accessible but on Monday they were accessible, except for that from ASIC.

Senator Stoker last week questioned Glenfield’s claims that the submissions were available and asked him to send her the links to those submissions.




Recommended for you

Comments

Comments

Then the submission from ASIC is the one that we all need to read and see.

FARSEAcal the Unethical processes from this so called Ethics Gods and ASIC.
Drain the regulatory SWAMP, get rid of them ALL and start again.
Disgustingly conflicted Red Tape Bureaucratic maniacs.

It is ironic that the very organisation responsible for raising professional standards and ethics in our profession, is acting in such a deceitful, secretive and biased fashion, without properly consulting those they seek to regulate or researching the impact of their extreme measures on consumers. The government needs to hold this contemptuous rabble to account.

Dear Bozo, I would suggest that this is more a case of FASEA being incompetent and unprofessional in not checking their work.

No, what I'm saying is that by not releasing 1 submission, the ASIC one, then that is clearly the one they relied on and is likely to contain the more 'targeted' guidance, mostly against we evil advisers.

we need to see the ASIC submission NOW! why do these petulant recalcitrant people at FASEA refuse to make the submission open for all to see. we'd like to see it in full.

btw, i already passed your crappy exam without any study and finished 1 hour before full time

The submission from ASIC reads:

"get rid of all INDEPENDENT financial advisers for all but the super wealthy so that the banks and industry super funds can sell their underperforming investments/insurances without competition or regulation. Allow everyone other than financial advisers to recommend anything they want without regulation or compliance and make sure that the general public have no access to the only sector of the finance industry who actually care about their clients."

so True, I think they just cut and pasted from their FoFA submission.

Why doesn't Minister Hume instruct FASEA to release the ASIC Consultation response? After all, wouldn't that be the "ethical" thing to do. Ethics is partly based on actions that benefit 'society' (i.e. the advice industry collectively) over the individual (FASEA).

MIA Hume is too busy at the Bund summit Shanghai, China. Telling China what a great job Australians are doing with Fintec, to worry about what is actually happening in Australia.

What we really need to see in relation to Standard 3 is who pushed for all conflicts to be "avoided" rather than "managed". This issue is the biggest problem with the whole FASEA Code, because all remunerated advice has some sort of conflict. Standard 3 is a loaded gun pointed at the head of every adviser, just waiting for a biased regulator to pull the trigger.

Whose idea was that? Was it deliberately done to persecute advisers, or did whoever push for it not really understand the ramifications? Knowing the answer to that question is perhaps a useful step in getting Standard 3 fixed.

Best interest obligations and the entire code is loaded gun. Advisers don't have a leg to stand on.

I'm waiting to be able to read the ASIC submission, because I suspect it is in there, just so they have the authority to sue more and more licensees and advisers with the result that our PI costs will force us out of the industry. The way it is going, nobody is going to provide PI cover for the FP industry, resulting in no Licensees and no advisers able to practice. :P

Could someone please provide guidance on where to find this submission information on the FASEA website ?
It does not appear to be entirely obvious.

I had the same problem but eventually found it via a google search.

https://www.fasea.gov.au/coe-guidance-submission/

Mike, can you push FASEA to release the ASIC submission? Is there any way to request their email correspondence under freedom of information? The longer this goes on the more unethical it looks.... very interesting.

Bit like ASIC not wanting to release details of their gift register. What are they hiding?

Meanwhile the Industry Super funds can flog their product, offering $40,000 bonuses to their inhouse intrafund marketing reps, all with the blessing of FARSEA. Whereas retail advisers would be fined for doing so. What a joke. Time for FARSEA to be shut down.

Add new comment