Spotlight shone on ASIC again
|
|
The spotlight will again be turned on the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), with a Nationals Senator saying the regulator hasn’t responded quickly enough to wrong doings by administration and liquidation companies.
New South Wales Nationals Senator John Williams instigated a Senate inquiry this week into the practices of liquidators and administrators.
Williams said while the majority of administration and liquidation companies are acting appropriately, he believes there are some that are misusing their powers. Williams is also concerned that the corporate regulator has not been responsive in this area.
“I have included the reference to ASIC because I don’t believe [ASIC] acts quickly enough on information provided to it, or even thoroughly investigates all matters,” Williams said.
As such, the inquiry will include an examination of the involvement and activities of ASIC following a business collapse, Williams said.
Williams has referred an investigation into the role of liquidators and administrators to the Economics References Committee. The inquiry will examine, among other things, the fees charged and practices employed by these companies before and after the collapse of a business.
Williams is “concerned there may be wrong doings, possibly the abuse of power and even corruption in some sectors of the industry”.
The Economic References Committee will report by August 31 next year.
Recommended for you
ASIC has issued infringement notices to two AFSLs over financial advisers providing personal advice while they were unregistered.
Australian retirees could increase their projected annual incomes by as much as 51 per cent through comprehensive financial advice, according to a Vanguard study, but cost continues to be an issue.
AMP has announced a senior appointment to its North leadership team, reinforcing the firm’s commitment to the advice industry.
Despite the financial adviser exam being rooted in ethics, two professional year advisers believe the lack of support and transparency from the regulator around the exam is unethical.
