Major vote of no confidence in FASEA

Respondents to a Money Management survey have delivered an overwhelming vote of ‘no confidence’ to the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) despite generally supporting the objectives of the FASEA regime.

Just as importantly, nearly 91% of respondents believe that the Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology, Senator Jane Hume, would be justified in intervening with respect to FASEA.

Asked the direct question, “Do you have confidence in the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority”, 97% of the 138 respondents answered “no”.

Related News:

This was despite the fact 66% of respondents said they supported the objectives of the FASEA regime.

Those respondents stating they had no confidence in FASEA were then asked why, with the overwhelming sentiment being critical of the FASEA board with suggestions that it was conflicted, had not listened to industry feedback, lacked industry experience and was short on common sense.

The responses also suggest that FASEA’s handling of the code of ethics was the straw that broke the camel’s back in terms of adviser confidence, with many respondents declaring their support for a regime which seeks to advance planning towards becoming a profession but their lack of confidence in FASEA.

A number of respondents said that it appeared some members of the FASEA board were pursuing a political agenda and, as such, were not practicing what they preached in terms of meeting ethical standards.

Interestingly, only 23% of respondents said they had sat the FASEA adviser exam with 93% of those passing but whether or not they had passed the exam appeared to make little difference to their critical views of FASEA.

Money Management will be leaving the survey open to further responses.

Recommended for you



A damning indictment of FASEA's failure to engage the industry. A majority agree with increased standards and professionalism, they just don't agree with how FASEA has gone about it and have become almost an untouchable authority to themselves.

I wonder if the 4 people who said they have confidence in FASEA are either directors of FASEA or employed by FASEA?

There has been a gross misuse of ideological bias stemming from within FASEA and from submissions presented to them from various opportunistic organisations.
This cannot and should never be acceptable in regard to an appointed body dealt with such important responsibility as designing and structuring a Code of Ethics for an entire industry. It is simply unethical.
This is comparative to several directors on a medical board designing a code of ethics for Doctors who have had a significant background with pharmaceutical companies and those very pharmaceutical companies providing submissions to that board for recommendations regarding how those Doctors should be acting and managing the treatment of their patients.
The secrecy regarding submissions and the interaction from the regulator that has now escalated to a point where subversion and cover up from FASEA is rapidly becoming suspected is leading to the overwhelming vote of no confidence in the process and with FASEA itself.
This has not worked and will not work until the Minister steps in and acts accordingly to place the process on hold until the important issues are correctly addressed.

"a gross misuse of ideological bias". Hmm. So, a person should not misuse ideological bias?

correction...... " a gross USE of ideological bias"! you want a third go? Maybe it's just ideological bias methinks (which likely is not the subject of use, misuse or abuse)

Apologies for my grammar but, you're a waste of space.

Once upon a time there was an old fella who for over four decades provided advice on insurances & investments honestly, efficiently and fairly.

Then along came some people paid by the purse of his clients and others, with no experience whatsoever in this field.

They decided that other than looking your client in the eye, knowing them as friends, watching their kids grow up and sharing with each other, there needed to be a code of ethics. This would improve things for those clients of his.

So, those on salaries at his Licensee, Government , his professional association, the Tax Practitioner Board & the FASEA decided he needed a code of ethics. So, most of them individually wrote one for him.

He now spends nearly all of his time making sure he meets his obligations under every single one of those codes.

He has become distant from his clients. He no longer attends their weddings, children’s Christenings, birthday parties or funerals.

He is too busy trying to deliver his much valued services efficiently, although he always delivers them fairly and honestly.

He finds it hard to recall the personal details of the success that a client’s child may have had or that their spouse’s dad recently died.

He is far too busy in meetings covering his butt, making detailed notes about insignificant details that all of the aforesaid bodies deem important so that his file note passes the examination of people who have never been an adviser themselves.

He feels tired, exhausted even. His mental health his poor. His clients notice he has changed. He appears to worry more about himself these days than them.

He ponders the future, hourly, daily. He wonders why he still bothers, even after he passed the exam that he apparently shouldn’t have at his age.

He worries about the future of his clients. He knows his time left in their service is limited, as all the code setters want to see him gone.

He feels alone. Dis-respected. But he soldiers on for now. His clients need him to.

You are not alone Old Fella. There are thousands of us, all in the same boat. But you are wrong about one thing. Your clients still know you care. Keep your chin up.

Old Fella I couldn't have summed up my own thoughts as well as this, if it's any consolation I can tell you the youngins feel exactly the same way, I'm early 30's and nearly too exhausted to care anymore. And I use to be so passionate...

Add new comment