Research house and dealer group roles queried on product failure

27 June 2017
| By Mike |
image
image
expand image

A Federal Parliamentarian has queried whether research houses and dealer group investment committees should be held responsible for products placed on approved product lists.

In discussion around financial services product manufacturers being required to stand behind their products, Queensland Liberal National Party backbencher, Bert van Manen pointed to the amount of scrutiny applied to financial advisers in recent years, and queried why similar scrutiny was not applied elsewhere in the product manufacturing/approval chain.

“…This has been part of my frustration over the last few years with the whole financial services reform process,” he said. “Largely the advisers have borne the brunt of the changes, yet, for a product to be available to an adviser to recommend, first there is the product issuer, and then there is a research house or multiple research houses that have done research reports on the particular product, and then it has gone to the investment committee at the dealer group.”

Asking questions of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) before the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, van Manen said all these things needed to happen before a product went on an APL.

“All of those other steps up the ladder have not been addressed,” he said.

“Where has the responsibility been sheeted home to? The dealer groups and their investment committees, for putting products on approved lists when maybe they should never have been there, and those sorts of things.”

van Manen said he was pleased to see that a start was being made to dealing with product issuers, but he believed “there are a couple of other steps in there in terms of research houses and the investment committees at the dealer groups that are making these decisions before it even gets to the adviser”.

ASIC deputy chairman, Peter Kell said he believed some part of the product/manufacturing chain would be captured in the legislation which would underpin an ASIC product intervention power because of the “decision-making process for how the product is actually framed and how it gets into the hands of customers”.

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...

6 days 21 hours 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...

6 days 22 hours 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 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 1 week 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 1 week ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND