Has FASEA already decided direction of Standard 3?

Despite the education authority announcing it is consulting on the unworkable Standard 3 of its code of ethics, its wording in its consultation paper suggests it prefers the second option, or would unlikely err too far from it, according to the Association of Financial Advisers (AFA).

Speaking to Money Management, AFA general manager for policy and professionalism, Phil Anderson, said the association was pleased the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) were finally consulting on changes to the standard as it was currently unworkable.

On Tuesday, FASEA said it was considered amending Standard 3 regarding conflicts of interest and outlined three wording options of the standard.

However, Anderson pointed to wording in the consultation paper that suggested FASEA was in favour of the second option.

It said: “Although FASEA considered all stakeholder feedback, FASEA has decided not to explore feedback that was not supported by stakeholders in previous consultation processes or not aligned with the Governments and/or FASEA’s intention.

“In particular, the draft wording of Standard 3, as prepared for the version of the code consulted on in November 2018, was considered but ultimately rejected as an option. FASEA has a settled commitment to the principle, confirmed by the findings of the Hayne Royal Commission, that advisers must not advise, refer or act in any other manner where they have a conflict of interest or duty.”

In the second option, FASEA was considering amending the Standard 3 wording to align it with Commissioner Hayne’s findings.

The second option read: “You must not receive any benefit (whether monetary or non-monetary), nor enter into any relationship, that could reasonably be expected to influence the advice you give or the service you provide to your client”.

Anderson said the issue with the second option was that it was very focused on benefits and relationships and less focused on the client outcome.

“In our view, if the client gets the right outcome should we be overly focused on whether there's a small non-monetary benefit that might occur at some point in the relationship?” he said.

“Or that when we talk about relationships – this goes back to the issue of referrals where you've got a mutual referral arrangement where both parties have done comprehensive due diligence, and they are confident that the other party is a good party for our clients to deal with. We wouldn't want that to be an obstacle to them using those mutual referral arrangements.

“That's where the hesitancy is as that second one is seemingly much more definitive that you can't receive any benefit and you cannot enter into any relationship that could be reasonably expected to influence the advice you give, or the service you provide to your client. There's no room for managing those conflicts they seemingly have to be avoided.”

Anderson said the association preferred the first wording option but wanted to see a focus on “material conflict of interest or duty” and not to encompass anything minor.

He also said there needed to be more clarity around the word “inducing” in the first option.

“We’d like to the see the first option refer to a material conflict, and provide clarity as to what it really meant by inducing you. And that would obviously not include things like life insurance commissions where the advice complies with the best interest duty,” he said.

The three wording options for Standard 3 were:

  • Option one: You must only advise, refer or act where you do not have a conflict of interest or duty, being that which could reasonably be expected to induce you to act other than in the client’s best interest.
  • Option two: You must not receive any benefit (whether monetary or non-monetary), nor enter into any relationship, that could reasonably be expected to influence the advice you give or the service you provide to your client.
  • Option three: Retain existing wording – You must not advise, refer or act in any other manner where you have a conflict of interest or duty.



Recommended for you

Author

Comments

Comments

"Consultation" in name only. This is a joke. How long has the industry been waiting for this? I've lost count of the months (years?) for what; a few paragraphs with a not so subtle message that of the 3 "options" provided, only one option is really on the table.

Like all FASEA consultations, it is a sham. The change to standard 3, is an attempt at entrenching a disastrous code, which is excessive, punitive and not supported by the financial planning profession

Ha Ha Ha FARSEA very funny to say you will consult openly.
Advisers know that is utter BS.
I know, why doesn't ASIC pay another $150,000 of our Adviser Levy funds to conflicted so called Academics for another round of Paid for Comment corrupt submissions.
And then FARSEA can totally ignore the real world, adviser submissions and go with the Paid for Comments rorts.
Job done, Real Advisers stitched up yet again by FARSEA.
FARSEA, the most UNETHICAL, CONFLICTED AND MIND NUMBINGLY BUREAUCRATIC so called Ethics body ever known. What a disgusting mess you have made of a good opportunity.
FARSEA, the so called Ethics body that brakes EVERY ONE OF THEIR OWN STANDARDS AND CODES.

FARSEA's last stand. They'll be in perpetual obscurity come 2022, yet their "legacy" will be left behind for advisers & consumers alike to deal with. They'll have taken their money and run, with some FASEA Directors/senior staff likely to appear on the industry speaking circuit (for a non-disclosed fee of course) as conferences open up in 2022 and when they are released from the shackles of their FARSEA contract.

some are very handsomely paid already for being consultants, designing and reviewing courses for Universities.

One FASEA Board Member in particular will do very nicely for years to come. FASEA is forcing all advisers to study another ethics course, even if they have completed previous university level ethics subjects and passed the FASEA exam on the specific FASEA Code. FASEA has also baked in a huge amount of mandatory ongoing ethics CPD training. Advisers are now forced to do more ongoing ethics training than ongoing training in tax or investment or legislation, even though ethics issues don't change nearly as much.

This will be an absolute goldmine for ethics course providers and ethics textbook writers, the most prominent of which is a FASEA Board Member. If only there was a Federal ICAC.

They will need to define Non Monetary benefit. By me supporting, best interests met because I've worked out how to answer the compliance process correct i.e. reverse engineering the compliance to meet the recommendation, an internal SMA, but I recieve no direct monetary benefit, but I know if I support it the overall business is healthier and my job will be more secure or my rent might be somewhat below market, or my license fee somewhat below market, then is that Non Monetary benefit? Define the $$ , define how in hell they are going to regulate and audit that.

There is a lot of negativity here. Guys and girls, fellow professionals, we need constructive criticism. This is OUR profession. We all know we have been ambushed from a large number of non-stakeholders, BUT....we do have the opportunity to collectively (even if it means forming new associations) Do what all other professions have achieved in the past: ..Taken control of their profession, through a united voice., not a UNITED GRIPE.

Add new comment