'Fiduciary duty' a potential minefield

corporations-act/financial-services-licence/parliamentary-joint-committee/financial-advice-industry/australian-financial-services/

3 December 2009
| By Lucinda Beaman |
image
image image
expand image

Financial advisers paid a salary by a product manufacturer, such as those employed by banks, may find they cannot continue their client relationships if a purist definition of ‘fiduciary duty’ is introduced in the Corporations Act, a prominent financial services lawyer has warned.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services (PJC) has recommended the Corporations Act be amended to explicitly include a fiduciary duty for financial advisers operating under an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL).

There remains significant uncertainty about what such a change could mean for the financial advice industry. Principal of Townsends Business and Corporate Lawyers, Peter Townsend, notes there is currently no strict definition of the term ‘fiduciary duty’.

Townsend said under a purist definition of fiduciary duty, even the presence of a conflict of interest is unlawful. This means advisers faced with conflicts of interest, such as being remunerated by a product provider, would have to withdraw from the relationship with the client, Townsend said.

“And that leads you to where your employed planners are, because they have a conflict every day of the week.”

Townsend agreed that a strict interpretation of fiduciary duty could wipe out the existing structure of the product manufacturer-aligned advice industry. The majority of Australian financial planners are aligned in some way to a financial product manufacturer.

At the other end of the scale, Townsend said, is a more relaxed definition of fiduciary duty. This would allow a conflict to exist as long as the adviser can prove the client’s interests were put first. But while a softer definition would allow salaried planners to continue under their current arrangements, meeting the definition would be difficult for those with restrictive Approved Product Lists (APLs).

“The smaller the APL, and the more the product manufacturer’s products are on that APL, the harder it’s going to be to prove that the advice given had nothing to do with the conflict the [adviser] had, let alone that

they acted in the [client’s] best interest,” Townsend said.

“That means that the banks will have to work harder at their APLs and displaying the benefits of their products.”

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

MARKET INSIGHTS

The succession dilemma is more than just a matter of commitments.This isn’t simply about younger vs. older advisers. It’...

1 week 4 days ago

Significant ethical issues there. If a relationship is in the process of breaking down then both parties are likely to b...

1 month ago

It's not licensees not putting them on, it's small businesses (that are licensed) that cannot afford to put them on. The...

1 month 1 week ago

AMP has settled on two court proceedings: one class action which affected superannuation members and a second regarding insurer policies. ...

4 days 10 hours ago

ASIC has released the results of the latest adviser exam, with August’s pass mark improving on the sitting from a year ago. ...

2 weeks ago

The inquiry into the collapse of Dixon Advisory and broader wealth management companies by the Senate economics references committee will not be re-adopted. ...

3 weeks ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND
Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
moneymanagement logo