ASIC reinforces how far EUs are out of favour
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has reinforced that enforceable undertakings will take a back-seat to litigation for licensees, particularly around section 912A of the Financial Services Reform Act dealing with acting efficiently, honestly and fairly.
ASIC deputy chair, Karen Chester said the regulator was pursuing this strategy because enforceable undertakings too often carried zero penalties.
“… s912A is now front and centre on ASIC’s ‘why not litigate’ radar, as distinct to the enforceable undertaking territory of the past,” she said. “And why? Before 13 March 2019 a breach of this provision would attract a penalty of zero. Today it attracts maximum civil penalties of up to $1.05 million for an individual, or up to $525 million for a corporation.”
Addressing a Sydney forum, Chester also reinforced ASIC’s view that disclosure of conflicts of interest was no longer sufficient and in doing so used the example of financial advice in the United States where disclosure of conflicts of interest is mandatory.
“When conflicted advisers provided ‘bad advice’ and disclosed said conflict, 81% of consumers followed that bad advice. Yet only 53% of consumers followed the bad advice when the conflict was not disclosed,” she said. “And why? The disclosure of the conflict backfired – it translated into a trust dividend for the adviser as opposed to the intended protection through consumer scepticism. A loyalty loss.”
In doing so, Chester said that an over-reliance on disclosure in some ways had proved an enabler of the poor conduct and poor consumer outcomes revealed by the Royal Commission.
Recommended for you
Government has introduced a bill to Parliament to legislate the first stream of the QAR reforms.
ASIC now has a 1:1 ratio when it comes to court success in the enforcement of crypto activities and more action is expected as Treasury seeks to introduce a regulatory framework.
A leading governance body has hit out at “specialist interest groups proposing ad hoc law reform” when it comes to reforms of financial services legislation and believes an independent body is needed.
The release of ALRC’s final report into financial services legislation has highlighted financial advice as a “significant” focus as it seeks to reduce costs and help advisers understand their obligations, alongside the Quality of Advice Review.
