Planners should look beyond trust in ratings houses

22 January 2015
| By Jason |
image
image
expand image

Financial planners should engage in greater scrutiny of the products they recommend and lift their knowledge about compliance and risk management issues as this is often overlooked by research houses.

At the same time financial planners and licensees should not automatically accept that the compliance committees retained by product issuers are fully capable of ensuring the product does not breach its constitution according to Know Compliance director Mei Ling Perry.

Perry, who formerly worked with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), and now provides compliance consulting services said that compliance committees are an area of concern because they are not adequately examined by either ASIC or research houses.

"They have a duty to report breaches when directors don't report them but some are not qualified to do so and are appointed because of ‘old boy networks' and are figureheads without a clue as to what they should be doing," Perry said.

Perry also stated that while ASIC kept an active register of authorised representatives and auditors it did not keep a register of compliance committee members nor did it track their movements and qualifications and suitability for the task.

"There are no current requirements for records to be kept about the relationship between directors and compliance committees, what they are doing in the latter role and their ability to carry out the compliance task with recommendations from a previous inquiry into this area not being adopted at all," Perry said.

Planners should consider looking past the research house view as well according to Perry because research houses only examine the investment quality of the product and not its ability to be legally compliant as well.

"Planners need to look beyond the investment risks and not rely solely on research houses which work with the tension of being able to maintain their reputation while still producing affordable research results," Perry said.

"However the examination of a compliance committee requires checking whether the people are able to carry out their legal obligations and not the quality of the product."

Read more about:

AUTHOR

 

Recommended for you

 

MARKET INSIGHTS

sub-bg sidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

Squeaky'21

My view is that after 2026 there will be quite a bit less than 10,000 'advisers' (investment advisers) and less than 100...

1 week 1 day ago
Jason Warlond

Dugald makes a great point that not everyone's definition of green is the same and gives a good example. Funds have bee...

1 week 1 day ago
Jasmin Jakupovic

How did they get the AFSL in the first place? Given the green light by ASIC. This is terrible example of ASIC's incompet...

1 week 2 days ago

AustralianSuper and Australian Retirement Trust have posted the financial results for the 2022–23 financial year for their combined 5.3 million members....

9 months 2 weeks ago

A $34 billion fund has come out on top with a 13.3 per cent return in the last 12 months, beating out mega funds like Australian Retirement Trust and Aware Super. ...

9 months ago

The verdict in the class action case against AMP Financial Planning has been delivered in the Federal Court by Justice Moshinsky....

9 months 2 weeks ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND