Australian regulatory protection ‘inferior’

ASIC/financial-planning/FOFA/chairman/australian-securities-and-investments-commission/federal-government/

3 July 2014
| By Mike |
image
image
expand image

Australia's regulatory protection of investors is inferior to that offered by other jurisdictions and the chairman of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), Greg Medcraft is guilty of a laissez faire attitude, according to financial services commentator and co-founder of FinaMetrica, Paul Resnik.

Commenting on the recent release of the Senate Committee report into the performance of ASIC, Resnik said the Australian regulator had an important role in protecting consumers against bad financial advice and taking action against advisers where unsuitable advice is given.

"ASIC's attitude to date has been too hands-off, as the Senate enquiry noted. Only as recently as last week, the ASIC Chairman Greg Medcraft said ‘being a free enterprise person, I would rather people sort out the issues between themselves rather than involving ASIC,' referring to disputes between advisers and consumers.

"He [Medcraft] also indicated he was happy for the private sector to take actions against dodgy advisers via litigation funds or class actions, rather than ASIC itself," Resnik said "Such a laissez-faire attitude does little to instil consumers' confidence that their interests will be protected by the regulator."

He claimed that such an approach also did not reflect an appreciation of the power imbalance between advisory businesses, which were now largely owned by the big banks, and consumers, many of whom are retirees and more often than not, financially illiterate.

"What we are seeing today is the result of poor decisions made by successive governments," Resnik said. "Initially, when the Federal Government began shifting responsibility for retirement from themselves to the community, they created a demand for advice but left it to industry to satisfy that advice. In the early 1990s, ASIC chose to go down a disclosure path rather than a quality of advice route. Hence, amongst other things, the very low entry standards required for financial advisors."

"The Government is ultimately responsible for the legislative and regulatory framework. What we have seen from the industry and the regulator over the last 20 years is only what could have been expected given the framework set," he said.

 

 

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

MARKET INSIGHTS

So we are now underwriting criminal scams?...

4 months 2 weeks ago

Glad to see the back of you Steve. You made financial more expensive, not more affordable as you claim, and presided ...

4 months 2 weeks ago

Completely agree Peter. The definition of 'significant change is circumstances relevant to the scope of the advice' is s...

6 months 2 weeks ago

Commonwealth Bank has formally dropped to zero advisers following LGT Crestone’s acquisition of its advice arm – some six years on from the Hayne royal commission. ...

1 week 4 days ago

ASIC has cancelled the AFSL of an advice firm associated with Shield and First Guardian collapses, and permanently banned its responsible manager. ...

3 days 21 hours ago

ASIC has banned a former NSW adviser from providing advice for 10 years for investing at least $14.8 million into a cryptocurrency-based scam. ...

5 days ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND
Fund name
3y(%)pa
1
DomaCom DFS Mortgage
92.15 3 y p.a(%)
3