FPA urges imposition of regulatory requirements on 'strategic advice'

Just because financial advisers are providing “strategic advice” or “financial coaching” should not allow them to side-step their regulatory obligations, including to the Privacy Act, according to the Financial Planning Association (FPA).

Responding to a discussion paper around the Commonwealth’s review of the Privacy Act, the FPA said it believed all types of businesses collecting private information in order to provide a professional service should be subject to the Privacy Act framework.

The FPA has pointed out that under some existing regulations including those deriving from the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Act Financing Act, a business that does not hold an Australian financial services license (AFSL) or does not arrange a financial product will not necessarily be caught the privacy regime.

Related News:

“There are a range of financial services businesses that may fall outside this definition, including financial planners who provide only strategic advice (which does not involve a financial product recommendation), and financial or money coaches,” it said.

“The FPA considers it is appropriate for all businesses that collect personal information in order to provide a professional service - whether this is financial advice, strategic advice or financial coaching – to be subject to the Privacy Act framework,” the FPA response said.

“Most Australians would expect the disclosure of such personal information to their financial planner or other professional would be covered by privacy safeguards, regardless of whether the service they receive includes the recommendation of a financial product or is authorised by an Australian financial services licence.”

“The recommendation of a financial product should not be the determining factor in whether the Privacy Act framework applies,” the FPA response said.




Recommended for you

Author

Comments

Comments

Privacy Act, yes. Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Act Financing Act, No. AML and CTF are not a risk for advisers if they are not arranging or transacting on a product.

Technically correct, but in the spirit of everything being tossed around, I’d say if you consider someone’s personal circumstances you’re in the profession of Advice. So saddle up and join the regulatory ride.

good, need to put a noose around everyone.

... and why are we seeing the emergence of 'financial coaches' ...... because the whole (regulated) advice industry is a 'dog's breakfast' ...

Exactly, if Advisers could work in a decent REGS world this would not happen.
It’s the start of a revolt, telling ASIC, FARSEA, Pollies to get stuffed, your massive BS over regulation is so freaking stupid we will find ways to operate outside Govt scope.
And because ASIC regulated Advice is so costly with at least 50% wasted on useless REGS costs, it is possible to offer a great service, cost effectively, that is valued by clients, just without the BS Regs and costs.

FPA should be urging a complete strip down of BS REFS and Red Tape Cost over Advice.
Then this other issue won’t exist.

Of course the FPA won't insist on regular Opt-Ins for Intrafund Advisers providing personal advice - only for retail advisers, who they want to send broke, while they build their tied agency system for the instos. What a joke.

FPA.... you're irrelevant. Please move along, nothing to see here.

Add new comment