The involvement of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC)-funded Consumer Advisory Panel (CAP) in academic submissions has been going on for at least a decade with at least one 2011 Future of Financial Advice submission (FOFA) submission authored by a University of Sydney academic who is now one of ASIC’s most senior executives.
A joint consumer submission filed as part of Treasury’s FOFA consultation process in 2011 was prepared by Associate Professor Joanna Bird who is now ASIC’s executive director, financial services and wealth and responsible for overseeing the financial planning regime.
Attention has been directed towards the 2011 submission in circumstances where ASIC’s Consumer Advisory Panel has been confirmed as having helped sponsor two Griffith University academics in making a 2018 consumer submission as part of the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) code of ethics consultative process.
The 2018 submission on the code of ethics was authored by Dr Hugh Breakey and Professor Charles Sampford and is regarded as having been supportive of the approach adopted in the controversial Standard 3.
The 2011 submission was prepared by Bird on behalf of consumer groups, CHOICE, COTA, the Consumer Action Law Centre, National Information Centre on Retirement Investments (NICRI) and the Australian Investors Association (AIA).
The submission discloses input from those organisations and notes that the following individuals have contributed to the content of the submission:
- Stephen Duffield, consumer representative FOS (panel);
- Jenni Eason, member ASIC’s Consumer Advisory Panel, Australian Investors Association;
- David Leermakers, policy officer, Consumer Action Law Centre;
- Catriona Lowe, chief executive officer, Consumer Action Law Centre;
- Jenni Mack, chair ASIC’s Consumer Advisory Panel, chair CHOICE; and
- Wendy Schilg, member ASIC’s Consumer Advisory Panel, chief executive officer, National Information Centre on Retirement Investments Inc.
Catriona Lowe was a member of the FASEA board before resigning on 31 January, this year.
Among the points made in the 2011 submission was the need for annual fee disclosure statements and annual opt-in and rejecting proposals that the renewal notice period be extended beyond two years.
The submission also sought the disclosure of commissions and other remuneration received in the prior 12 months.
Comments
It is becoming crystal clear that a small number number of ideological zealots have hijacked the institutions involved in financial advice regulation, to impose their extremist views on society. They have fraudulently claimed to be representing consumer interests, when it is clear they are completely out of touch with real consumers. The result of their meddling has been to make financial advice far more complex and expensive and inaccessible for consumers.
Real consumers have been betrayed by these people, who have abused the system to line their own pockets and impose their will on others. The government needs to stand up for the interests of real consumers by defunding and depowering these charlatans.
Yes... they have definitely done a great job for consumers!!!
The irony is palpable
we need terry McMaster back to supervise ASIC and the superannuation trustees. that would be awesome and a good fitting punishment.
terry come back we miss your comments.
glad to see your website is still up, (are you hoping for a comeback or NOT?) answer me!
If you want to look at who destroyed the ability to service smaller clients there you go! What a dogs breakfast this is, flit from choice to asic to a university, then get on some other board, burn the flag of capitalism where ever you work next, trying as hard as you can in every role to enforce your own personal bias against a industry, whilst all the time living off the taxpayer. Lord help us
All makes sense. Academics are generally identified as left leaning and with little practical business experience, they're now all embedded in asic, you can see what's occurred.
another perfect example:
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong."
Thomas Sowell
And what has this mob achieved for consumers? Higher fees, reduced access to advice, life insurance premiums are soaring, life companies are on the brink and many consumers who would otherwise access mainstream, sensible advice are falling victim to realestate shonks, dodgy accountants, crap direct life insurance products, cyber criminals and scams such as the recent derivatives scandal. ASIC's obsession with financial adviser compliance and remuneration is costing consumers dearly.
How many lives have they ruined by the soaring price of insurance, where consumers cancel their products only to suffer an event that would have lead to a claim being paid. This is what's not accounted for.
Jenni Mack also sits on the Sunsuper board. Sunsuper verbally directed FP practices that came through the FPA referral partnership mockup that they had volume targets to roll from retail to industry if they wanted to stay on the panel, no concern for clients best interests. ASIC knows all about this stuff and endorses tpeople like Jenni for their advisory panels. What an imbroglio.
If someone exposes this shocking illegal conduct, you can bet it will be the individual advisers and licensees who will be punished, not the super funds or board members like Jenni Mack.
wow, that is a massive conflict of interest
And of course the conflicted corrupt ASIC has never investigated or taken action against her or that organisation.
ASIC is corrupt.
and FPA members willingly participate in these programs?
could an FPA member who is involved comment on this please?
These consumer activists are actually being used & fed by the Industry Super Funds, who have zero interest in improving advice levels to consumers. Hence the huge advice gap they are creating. What you NEVER hear these consumer activists calling for is informed consent being required for members of Industry Super funds, who are paying ongoing advice fees (for decades) without receiving any advice. That is the real scandal here.
I can almost guarantee that this will go no further. We read these articles, get ourselves all worked up regarding how appalling it is, then sadly go back to the daily grind that has become FP compliance. Where are the major players within the advice industry to make the noise? Where is the FPA, the AFA the big licensees. All too scared to put their heads up in case they get shot off. Then they wonder why they have lost the loyal following of their members. We are crying out for someone to be our voice.
actually, it would be nice if it just stopped here.
whenever I read these comments I think far out, what now, more whingeing will lead the consumer activist, ASIC, the dealer groups to think advisers haven't got enough to do, let's introduce another new form and they do.
I have already made suggestions for new form names here. happy for ASIC, dealer groups, fpa, AFA, consumer activist groups, and anybody else to use them.
1. pre-pre engagement letter (PPEL), given before the engagement letter with the discussion paper (if your licensee allows it)
2. post service agreement letter (PSAL) after issuing the engagement letter to make sure the client understands the engagement letter
3.post FDS acknowledgement Letter (PFDSAL), client confirming they received the FDS
4. Post OPT in Acknowledgement Letter (POPTAL), self-explanatory
5. Post OPT in Prior, Informed Consent Letter (POPT PICL), to ensure and record that the client understood, and we are satisfied they understood that they understood what they signed in the OPT in form
6. Privacy Consent to release Personal Advice Documents to Super Fund Trustee (PCRPADSFT) to release client information to the trustee to prove we provided them with service so we can get paid.
do others have any further suggestions. let's try and get it to at least 100 forms per client, and then we can all be happy.
that's a nice list.
I am with you, the recent survey ASIC commenced to understand the escalating cost of advice and why we aren't providing scaled advice will definitely result in two to three more forms. possibly more. I am hoping for at least a dozen more.
I mean these people at ASIC are complete and total retards ( if it is not apparent to you all by now). and the membership bodies are utter and complete retards too anytime they make a representation to government, it does the opposite.
so this is why I suggest they introduce another half a dozen new forms on their own accord because when they do the government and the retards at ASIC and the consumer activists will think and say, "if the financial planners want it, there must be something they will gain from it (bastards) so we'll do the opposite and reduce the number of forms". Jane will lend in and cackle too.
it's a great strategy fpa and AFA, please start lobbying the government for at least the 6 forms. the list above from a very astute financial planner is a good start, a dozen more would be good.
also, a checklist on when and where to go to the bathroom would be appreciated, the dealer groups can really help with this can It just be an email rather than a record of advice to let you people know how big my dumps were and how regular I am (i have a vegetarian high fiber diet btw)
and then we can get ASIC to do a 5-year longitudinal study as to why no adviser wants to give scaled advice and why the cost of advice has blown out and is never coming back down.
it might (I'm not sure they will get it though being the retards that they are) become apparent to all then. I have asked ASIC to do a simple survey to all the advisers listed on FAR, we'll tell you, but can you handle it.
cfp(r), m.fin plan, I passed the fucking fasea already in one go with no study so leave me the hell alone fucktards.
Wow Puti you’re running around out there going straight to the PPEL? You’re a cowboy! You need to start getting the paid Initial Security and Nil Exposure (INSANE) background check done on the client first before you can even think about putting together a PPEL!
You have heard of the Professional Partnership Program haven't you? It's where large super funds & insto's with hundreds of advisers working in call centre or Banks pay the FPA a lump sum of money annually. Further they then make it compulsory to be a member of the FPA and pay for all there membership fees in bulk. Surely you can't think your interests will be represented under that model do you? Under that model you'll always be the scape goat of large insto's and how does one simple member compete against those financial payments. You simple can't compete..so why keep contributing.
Exactly Yogi
I believe the FPA (Dante and Ben Marshan) are keeping quite as usual counting their (our) money and working out how to get another bonus. I'm just amazed at the salaries they receive and BONUSES on top - for what? The Industry is a mess.
Seems the money management people have become ASICs mouthpiece as well as an advertising mecca, so that you cannot actually read the content for all the advertising getting in the way. ASIC consumer panel funded by us and with government or academic laces espousing socialist theories about advice for all whilst making it impossible to provide advice for any due to their intent on getting more pieces of paper for consumers to sign to prove compliance. Quality of advice is irrelevant as long as the consumer signs 20 pieces of paper then that proves good advice. Not a consumer groups or adviser group, i.e. those who deal with consumers everyday, amongst this crowd of parasites and leeches. Pigs at a trough, and ASIC now just another snout to feed as evidenced by the behaviour of their top two operators. RORT RORT RORT, soon there will be no advisers left but maybe that is the goal.
You are all 10 years too late and you only have your selves to blame. Ground hog is spot on. Mortgage Brokers are next and they don't know what is coming from these same people.
it's true that guy sean Hughes, why doesn't he go back to New Zealand and ruin all the small businesses there. these people are good at spending other people's money and ruining small businesses.
This is further evidence that we desperately need a new SDB and that ASIC and any existing employee can't be part of that. This is absolutely rotten to the core. If these so called consumer groups were actually interested in what is best for the consumer then they would have applied consistency to their recommendations and lobbied hard for the industry funds to not be able to charge hidden commissions without informed consent to all their members. The fact that these groups like CHOICE have received tax payer money (and money from industry funds without informed consent) is disgraceful. They have managed to completely control our industry and the consumer is significantly worse off.
Agreed. The SDB must be set up free from any influence from the biased brigade at ASIC, fake "consumer groups" like CHOICE & CALC, and conflicted course providers like the so called "Ethics" Centre and Griffith "University".
and $40million from CBA and WBC
We never stood a chance did we!
The most powerful of the powerful from both the left and right of politics wanting to scapegoat financial planners for differing reasons. Keep vertical integration and provide legislative carve outs for industry funds.
My biggest regret in life is getting into this industry, I would be significantly better off if I went into anything else. Unfortunately, I'm left with a whopping big loan secured against my house for a business in an industry that you would have to be crazy to become part of.
"Nothing to see here...". Yeah rrrrrrrright. The ongoing exposure of conflicted, misleading & deceptive conduct by various "regulators" such as ASIC and FASEA (not a regulator & is even less accountable) or by their representatives is astounding. When is the Treasurer or Asst. Minister Hume going to stand up and take some action to clean out the regulatory cupboard and fit glass doors so we can see what's going on inside? We pay taxes to support the beaurocracy, so we areall "consumers".
The last time the fpa had jane hume on a webinar interviewed by Dante De Gori cfp (r), fpa CEO she cackled and Dante was heard saying (others can fill in here ) at the end of the interview
she cackled, they know there are 9 different regulators, she doesn't care, they don't care, no one cares. we are going down.
According to Adviser ratings, 100 advisers are leaving each week with virtually no new entrants.
we haven't got long to go until the industry shuts itself down.
count down to 2024 is on:
2021 down to 15,000 from 20,800 (current)
2022 down to 10,000 from 15,000,
2023 down to 5,000
and 2024 down to 100 left probably
The industry fund adviser numbers will increase so it won't go down below 1,000 as they will get whatever carve out they request. When the rest of us are all destroyed the Banks will then come in and save the day. Vertical integration domination......... Deja vu.
FASEA - what a money-spinner that one is! 20000 advisers to sit the exam @ $540 a pop = $10 million+ in revenue IF the adviser sits once! So far, about 15% (correct me if needed) will repeat, which is another 3000 @ $540, add another $1.5 million to the top line...has there been any questioning as to exactly what this raising of + $10 million of revenue is exactly for? On top of that, the annual adviser ASIC fee just escalates at CPI +++++++; where does this gravy train stop? where are the people asking these questions of the bureaucracy - what is the point of senate enquiries if all they do is put out statements that have no further action when they do have the big fat public servants over a barrel, umming and arghring when Stoker skewers them?? they leave the room and go back to their tax-payer and adviser-funded cushy positions - no real accountability and no consequences for the stuff-ups!
Jane Hume...completely silent.
Does that say something ??
she cackled, she knows well enough. not only has she been informed by the fpa, but various practicing financial planners who have written to her directly. these very financial planners have then gone on to attest that fact here.
"she is interested", some say, others "she wants to do something" she is listening.
what will happen is a 5-year longitudinal study by ASIC at a cost of $1bn to the taxpayer after 2024 when 1,000 (i have revised this figure upwards from 100 to account for the increase in intra-fund "financial advisers" ) financial planners are left, to understand :
a. what happened?
b. why did it happen?
c. what is the reason for the cost blow out for giving advice?
most of you are enterprising people, business owners who go out and provide something of value to the market and are able to charge a price for that, the first question in your mind is probably, "are these people really that stupid"?
I will let you think about it from the perspective of what has been provided as a solution over the last 10 years (without of course any consultation with those very people providing the advice).
I just saw an email from the FPA stating they made 38 submissions and had 295 meetings with the government. i will let you all jump to your own conclusions about that.
Regulatory Capture Corruption By ASIC has gone on far too long.
Left wing loonies with communist style views anti anything Real World Adviser.
Not that ODwyer or Frydenberg have helped in any way, they have been part of the Loonies with ever increasing BS REGS and it’s still going on.
ADMIN PLATFORMS NOW BEING FORCED BY ASIC TO IMPLEMENT NON LEGISLATED 2nd LAYER AFSL LAWS TO VET SOAs, vet upfront advice fees, vet Authorities to proceed, vet ongoing Advice and Advice fees.
Crazy total 2nd layer of new compliance checks occurring right now !!!!!!
that's nothing, only two layers. once ASIC gets a copy of the feedback from their survey about the cost of advice and scaled advice they will add more regulation to you know make it easier to "honestly efficiently and fairly" (haha ) provide financial services.
Starting to happen in mortgage broking too with lenders asking for copies of Client Needs Analysis in their system. Statements of Credit Advice next. Of course banks have a carve out as a product issuer and non-branch banks and non-banks of course rely on brokers so they've tilted that playing field as well. And of course today from the ABA "Make things tougher for non-banks" in MPA magazine.
Financial Services legislation and regulation has been infiltrated and hijacked by CHOICE, Consumer Action Law Centre and academics for the last decade or more.
ASIC are complicit in not only allowing this to happen, but have encouraged and facilitated the engagement in order to push an agenda which aligns with it's own.
This has been a funded and manipulated long term strategy across parties who subscribe to a common set of beliefs and ideology.
In this instance, it is cause for investigation into collusion, influence and deception.
When you have the regulator that must be independent of all other influences, paying for a submission to FASEA produced by 2 academics from the very same university as an academic board member of FASEA itself and who have previously referenced that same FASEA board member in prior documents, it is significant cause for concern regarding the validity or independence of any of these relationships.
This has been going on for some time now, but it is only recently that ASIC have been forced to admit the funding relationship.
When the regulator actually approves and funds the payment of a submission to FASEA , when ASIC themselves have provided 2 submissions to the same organisation and are fully engaged with FASEA during the submission process, there is nothing that can excuse or deny this is wrong on every single level.
This is a case of ASIC and the Consumer Advisory Panel effectively buying the commentary and loyalty of the academics to scope a document in order to support an agenda.
One must ask if this had been the FPA, FSC or CPA for example paying for other parties to formulate and provide submissions to FASEA in 2018 in addition to their own submissions, would that be considered acceptable or could that be considered a subliminal incentive for the receiving party to formulate a supportive submission relative to the paying party's submission ?
The other significant question that needs to be asked is that how does 2 highly qualified academics in the fields of moral philosophy, ethics, law and governance believe it is acceptable they are paid by the regulator via the Consumer Advisory Panel to produce a submission fully knowing the then Acting Managing Director of FASEA was a colleague at the same university and that members of the Consumer Advisory Panel were also providing submissions to FASEA ?
Would these academics have not thought the acceptance of payment from an organisation already contributing to the debate would potentially be seen as a conflict of interest or ethically and morally unacceptable ?
This is wrong.....entirely wrong.
The FASEA submission process has been a failure and it is now clearly compromised by what has been discovered.
There have been forces colluding in an attempt to influence outcomes.
You hit the nail on the head again Agent 86! Wouldn't it be wonderful if Asst. Minister Hume had a staffer who printed out all these comments. She might learn a thing or three. Or maybe she already does and feigns ignorance?
Add new comment