The consortium of professional associations including the Financial Planning Association (FPA) and the Association of Financial Advisers (AFA) will today file a formal application with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) to become a Code Monitoring Authority.
What is more the consortium, which was formed in December last year, has begun advertising to staff the new Code Monitoring Authority have placed advertisements for a “chair, deputy chair, plus additional governing body and disciplinary roles”.
FPA chief executive, Dante De Gori confirmed that the formal application would be lodged with ASIC by close of business today – which represented the deadline for such applications.
ASIC will then need to work promptly on that application and any others in circumstances where all existing financial planners and advisers will be required to subscribe to an approved scheme by 15 November.
The six professional associations which agreed to participate in establishing the code monitoring arrangement are: Financial Planning Association of Australia (FPA), Association of Financial Advisers (AFA), Boutique Financial Planners (BFP), Financial Services Institute of Australasia (FINSIA), Self Managed Super Fund Association (SMSF Association), and Stockbrokers and Financial Advisers Association (SAFAA).
Importantly, the Code Monitoring Authority, when established, will sit within a corporate structure separate from the associations.
The associations have decided to lodge the application with ASIC notwithstanding some continuing confusion about the position the Government will ultimately adopt because of conflicts between the original outline included in the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) regime and the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry.
The Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Services Technology, Senator Jane Hume is expected to clarify the Government’s position shortly.
Comments
What a joke. The FPA specifically are completely irrelevant for advisers and should shut up shop. Last desperate attempt to illicit more revenue
What's going to happen here. AMP wants to get rid of a planner so they ring up the FPA and say we paid you $60,000 last year via the professional partner program get rid of planner x. You can't be a code monitoring body with such conflicts. here's some other good reasons.
1) The FPA is not a professional body, 2) was held wanting at the Royal Commission, 3) acts solely on behalf of itself, and is confused as to whom it represents. 4) It's biggest achievement was putting on some tea and scones and calling it a conference and 5) it's only achievement in the last 20 years has been the ability for planners to witness a stat dec. 6) Just remember you're doing FASEA courses because during the CBA advice scandal CBA came out and said it's not us sales driven management it's un-educated planners and we need to lift education and also join the FPA and the FPA said YES Yes Yes.
From what I've heard there were no other applications to run a Code Monitoring body. ASIC asked the consortium to model their application on 20,000 (or thereabouts) advisers.
So riddle me this; if no applications were received, because of the uncertainty of the conflict between FASEA legislation and the Royal Commission Report re monitoring and disciplinary bodies - what would the authorities have done? Achieving anything by 15 November would have been a nonsense. The upside to no applications - we would have had politicians who would had to make a decision on how this would work and who would be the body. As it stands - the consortium have spent money that may be wasted if a more regulatory oriented body is chosen to perform the monitoring and disciplinary duties.
Add new comment