Clicky

Was FASEA’s adviser code written by non-advisers?

Not enough financial advice experience and understanding has been applied to the development of the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) code of ethics, according to members of the Association of Financial Advisers (AFA).

In a submission filed with FASEA just before the Christmas/New Year shutdown, the AFA warned that FASEA’s approach to the code risked creating complications because of its lack of practical appreciation of financial planning terminology.

The AFA has also urged greater application of the code to licensees, suggesting there exists a material gap between what is expected of adviser and what is expected of their licensees and urging that consideration be given to applying some standards at the licensee level.

Related News:

The AFA also complained that many of the issues it had raised in its earlier submission dealing with the code had not been addressed.

“Unfortunately, it is our view that much of what we recommended, following the first version, or questions that we had raised, have not been addressed,” it said. “For a Code that will be so pivotal to the operation of the entire financial advice profession, we are very concerned at the lack of detail and clarity in terms of the requirements.”

“The feedback that we have from some of our members is that it appears that there is not enough financial advice experience and understanding being applied in the development of this Code. We believe that this is relevant with respect to both the terminology and the practicality of what has been proposed.”

“In the absence of that practical appreciation, it is more challenging to realise the complications that a few words may create,” the AFA submission said.

The AFA submission has also echoed the concerns of the Financial Planning Association (FPA) that the implementation time-frame for the code of ethics is too tight, and that more time is needed for further industry consultation to deal with shortcomings, including a perceived lack of detail of detail and explanation.

 

 




Related Content

Due diligence vital in new buyer’s market

The Royal Commission final report, the release of which is hotly anticipated later today, may intensify the effect that both the Commission and the Fi...Read more

FASEA makes small exam concessions

The Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) has allowed some concessions with respect to the financial adviser exam.Releasing the leg...Read more

FPA urges Govt financial support for advisers pursuing degrees

Financial planners should be able to access Commonwealth support to achieve the education standards made necessary by the Financial Adviser Standards ...Read more

Author

Comments

Comments

Code of Ethics. What rubbish. Just be honest, factual and fair to all concerned. Just one sentence is all that is required.

Honesty, factual, fair - a big ask of the too many advisors caught out not doing the right thing by their clients. Seems to be at least one a week.

MR ISA raising your ugly head to slam advisers yet again, surprise surprise - pity 2018 didn't see the end of you and your salty snake like comments

No - hanging around to educate you.

I want to see the bad advisors leave and the good advisors stay with good reputations and many clients. Should be simple enough for you to comprehend (get).

Except Hedware, while you deny or say you eschew any biases, your comments are 99% stridently in support of ISA. Hardly the wise King Solomon and paragon of unbiased virtue or adviser's advocate that you're purporting to be.

As others have already noted, you seem to be a red rag flag waving left wing ISA/Labor/Union supporter who generically bags all planners. It is only ever in your subsequent weak justifications after you've been called out that you extol any adviser may have a shred of merit, but as per above, always indicate that there are far more 'bad' advisers; solely defined it appears, as anyone who don't subscribe to your narrow limited viewpoints.

In this forum you will never have any credibility until you actually acknowledge or at least address the many flaws ISA funds have, that have been put to you as queries by myself and numerous others on here, which you consistently fail to address or answer in any meaningful direct way (and no, diverting the conversation onto the flaws of retail funds or banks is not an answer to a direct question about ISA).

Happy to continue this dialogue in this public forum and refresh your memory around the specific questions and issues many of us have with the opaque ISA funds if you actually do wish to have a grown up conversation and can feel you can explain, justify of even prove our concerns are incorrect.

Up to it?

As I keep repeating I have no interests or dealings with industry funds and so not really in the position to know the ins and outs of their businesses. But I do have interests and dealings with the retail funds and so want them to deliver at best rates and on best behaviour. The Royal Commission has shown that in many areas the retail funds have failed in terms of performance and morals in respect to their clients.

Because you lot are so enamoured to, and probably work in, the retail funds, then I suggest you lot have little working knowledge of industry funds and are making it up. An example is the constant belief that industry funds only have union representatives as board directors - seems to be impossible to get it through that they have employer representatives as well. I know that through my business connections.

I like competition and hoping industry funds might make retails funds more competitive and that would suit me fine.

I don't know why the Royal Commission didn't have a bigger look at industry funds - maybe there is not as many issues as had the retail banking and financial services sectors - maybe the Commission found too many things amiss with the bankers that it run out of time to look more closely at industry funds. Remember Turnbull, Morrison, Dwyer et al didn't want the Royal Commission and so when forced to do so, they put a tight deadline on the Royal Commission to restrict its investigations. Blame Turnbull and his ministers if the Royal Commission ran out of time to look across to the industry funds.

Ah, deflection back to banks and retail funds as expected. Well you're nothing if not consistent.

Refer to my first paragraph and take note. I know little about industry super funds and becoming obvious that nor do you.

Productivity Commission report released today looks to increase competition for both retail and industry super funds. That will be good if implemented by whatever party that gets in.

Because you obviously have the attention span of raw chicken wing that has expired past its use by date, I've quoted here the crux of my prior comment that required answering:

"In this forum you will never have any credibility until you actually acknowledge or at least address the many flaws ISA funds have, that have been put to you as queries by myself and numerous others on here, which you consistently fail to address or answer in any meaningful direct way (and no, diverting the conversation onto the flaws of retail funds or banks is not an answer to a direct question about ISA)."

In no way does your 'paragraph' make any attempt (just as per all your replies, ad nauseum) .

I will use short words for you.

I don't have any business with industry super funds.

Ah. So you're just admitting being ignorant then?

Do they have any business with you? Are you a property valuer or I suspect more accurate, your in Treasury or Productivity Commission? Your level of knowledge hints at a Government/Regulator role or straight being conflicted by business from Industry Super.

"As I keep repeating I have no interests or dealings with industry funds and so not really in the position to know the ins and outs of their businesses."

Nothing to see here, I assure you.....

and then straight after

" then I suggest you lot have little working knowledge of industry funds and are making it up. "

Then how would you ever know?

Well because he clearly now is an expert..

"An example is the constant belief that industry funds only have union representatives as board directors - seems to be impossible to get it through that they have employer representatives as well."

but I don't want to contradict myself so

"I know that through my business connections."

Pathetic.

And what about the "plethora" of phone based personal advice which has been provided under the guise of "General advice" in terms of in house advisers doing the right thing by the Law in adhering to the relevant Advice processes. Recent data/research now uncovering the glaring anomolies in this space, though barely touched or even mentioned in the RC fiasco. Rules are rules - regardless of Licensee. Level playing field for all, with the vertically integrated Bank/Industry Fund models all being scrutinised and in the process uncovering the inherent biases which exist.

There will never be a level playing field as long as vertically integrated and conflicted industry funds are allowed by ASIC to give “free” intra-fund advice that blatantly do not meet the best interest duty obligations of FOFA when everyone else has to play by the rules!

100% agree forexops

Phone advice is sold as personal advice on many super fund websites. It is actually named personal advice.....

Add new comment