Product manufacturers should stay out of advice

Advisers should not be subject to direction from product manufacturers under the new design, distribution and product intervention powers, according to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).

ASIC senior executive leader, Strategy Group, Greg Kirk has told the Senate Economics Legislation committee that the regulator believes that product manufacturers should not be allowed to get in the way of the professional advice process.

Under questioning from Queensland Labor Senator, Chris Ketter Kirk said ASIC’s position was that the regime was designed to address situations, particularly the design and distribution obligation, where there was not personal advice.

Related News:

“On the basis that whatever you did about design and distribution, if your customers are getting professional, good-quality advice, that is an intervening event, such that they should be entitled to rely on that advice and that those advisers should not be subject to direction from the product manufacturer about what advice they should be giving or who should be included,” he said.

“We would accept that there have been problems with the quality and professional standards in the advice area,” Kirk said. “We think the solution to that is to fix the quality of personal advice rather than substitute this obligation for it. “

“If you had both obligations, the personal advice obligations and the design and distribution obligations, applying to the same transaction I think there would be some tension between them.”

Related Content

Uncertainty the only certainty for financial planners

Rarely in the past half-decade have Australian financial planners closed out a year facing more policy uncertainty.As planners close out 2018 and prep...Read more

Deakin University student takes out AMP adviser challenge

Deakin University student, Michael Reardon, has won the national financial planning competition, the AMP University Challenge, for scoring the most po...Read more

Frydenberg names new ASIC deputy chair

The woman who has been integral to the Productivity Commission’s sometimes controversial examination of the competitiveness and efficiency of supera...Read more




Queensland Labor Senator, Chris Ketter Kirk said ASIC’s position was that the regime was designed to address situations, particularly the design and distribution obligation, where there was not personal advice. Better looking into industry funds then too

Industry funds are product makers, so this has to include them. It also I assume would have to include those dealerships that have their own internally badged platforms and so forth, as they are also product providers. So they either dont offer the badged platforms, or they dont allow those licenced with them sell it. Its a can of worms for some dealerships as its the only way they can make money, just as it will be with the industry funds and anyone else that makes products for thier own in house advisers to either advise on specifically or exclusively.

Agree with both above comments but we all know that ASIC are corrupt, biased or inept enough to not include ISA in their cross hairs.

Agreed, industry funds are just as vertically integrated as anyone else but think they hold the moral high ground because their advisers are not paid commissions or bonuses. I would still bet that each adviser is still expected to push the in-house product regardless. No adviser should be an employee of aproduct provider and vertical integration completely banned. Also, all targets for advisers should be abolished including the ridiculous revenue targets which drive the same behaviour by skewing the focus towards the business outcomes.

Advisers in industry funds are measured on the number of SOAs (Statements of advice) they provide this is one of the main KPI's they have. Also they have different SOAs Types eg Risk, Super, Retirement, Debt advice etc what type of advice they are giving which all have $$$ attached to each plan or advice they are giving. We measure our advisers on the number of clients they """ help "" """$$$$''''''

Industry funds don't ever say they don't get commissions eg "Our advisers don't receive Commissions" the Super Funds still get Commissions from Insurance companies.

The real story is why are there so many industry funds when they don't all perform that great why not and yet they spend a lot of money always comparing closed products on retail funds.

ASIC has made their position clear. I wonder how the FPA goes when they make submissions to ASIC. Clearly ASIC would also frown on this relationship and take things with a grain of salt. i.e " Here's yet another proposal straight from the FPA the group that represents ABC product and those other firms before a Royal Commission....we chuck that in the bin"

Add new comment