How planners will sit in judgement on planners

It has been confirmed that the financial planners appointed to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) Financial Services and Credit Panel will be expected to sit in judgement and help determine banning orders against their fellow planners.

The degree to which the planner members of the panel will be involved in this activity has been outlined in ASIC’s Regulatory Guide 263 (RG263) released this week, which clearly states the role the planners will play alongside ASIC personnel in sitting in judgement on their peers.

It said sitting panels would be responsible for a subset of ASIC’s administrative decisions, namely for determining whether ASIC would make a banning order against individuals for misconduct in the  course of providing retail financial services and/or engaging in certain credit activities where the matter is appropriate for peer review because of its significance, complexity or novelty.

Related News:

However, the Regulatory Guide makes clear that not all banning orders will be referred to the panels – only the ones which ASIC deems are worthy of peer review. Further, a planner being targeted by ASIC for attention will not get to choose whether they appear before a panel.

The regulatory guide states that when deciding whether the banning matter is appropriate for peer review because of its significance, complexity or novelty, ASIC will consider the following relevant factors:

(a) current areas of ASIC’s regulatory priority;

(b) the potential impact of the banning order on industry practices;

(c) legal or factual complexity; and

(d) new areas of market practice or regulatory oversight for ASIC.


Recommended for you




What financial planners appointed to the panel? I can only seriously see 1-2 are actual practising planners and the rest are not. How is ASIC defining a financial planner?

There are only three individuals on the list who are practitioners or have a background as a practitioner. The rest are all compliance professionals, including a number from large institutions who in my view have no place on such a panel since a lot of the issues our profession is dealing with arguably occurred under their watch. The selections do not even meet ASIC's own published requirements for the role. Sometimes you just have to shake your head and role your eyes... The AFA and FPA should be jumping up and down about this but are completely silent so far.

What planners? There are only 2 and one ex individual who did more to damage the risk industry than the rest combined and left their previous organisation in a financial mess. What a joke.

jobs for the boys!?? or those most agreeable.

one is the institutional head of growth partnerships and marketing - whatever that means - and that aligned dealership would have plenty of problems with practices acquired to its license, over which I can only imagine these types of appointees have had responsibility.

So I take it our new charges to fund asic will also fund these hangers on as well? So we can pay for those that police us, and we can also pay for these already well off nufties to look over advisers files now and then. What a industry!

Add new comment