FPA submission urges greater differentiation

8 April 2014
| By Staff |
image
image
expand image

The Financial Planning Association (FPA) has used its submission to the Financial Systems Inquiry to argue for greater differentiation between general and personal advice. 

The submission, released by the FPA today, claims the current framing of 'general advice’ versus personal advice exposes investors to undue risk, with respect to the regulation of financial advice. 

“Many retail investors are not able to distinguish between general and personal advice and are at risk of making inappropriate financial decisions for their specific circumstances as a result,” the submission said. “A review of the general/personal advice definitions, and the risks these definitions pose to consumers, should therefore be considered as part of the Inquiry.” 

The FPA submission also calls for institutions and product manufacturers to be seen as intermediaries and therefore be obliged to adhere to similar obligations. 

“The concept of a 'gatekeeper’ in financial services has evolved in the last 30 years to describe the obligations of a financial intermediary whose purpose is to protect against misconduct by another party,” it said. “To function effectively in this role, gatekeepers are understood to possess reputational capital as a result of their position of trust, and lose that capital if they engage in misconduct themselves. 

“Several professions, such as auditors and lawyers, have already been described as gatekeepers in so far as their interactions with financial systems are concerned, and we believe that it is a useful concept to describe how professionalism should work in financial services. 

“For the financial system to operate effectively, product issuers must be seen as intermediaries and adhere to similar consumer and system-oriented obligations and values as those that currently apply to other market participants,” the submission said. 

“Product issuers should not be treated as outside this intermediary function. All participants must comply with the same type of obligations, otherwise the financial system will fall apart. This includes responsibilities to both financial citizens and to uphold the integrity of the financial system itself.”

Read more about:

AUTHOR

 

Recommended for you

 

MARKET INSIGHTS

sub-bg sidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

Squeaky'21

My view is that after 2026 there will be quite a bit less than 10,000 'advisers' (investment advisers) and less than 100...

4 days 18 hours ago
Jason Warlond

Dugald makes a great point that not everyone's definition of green is the same and gives a good example. Funds have bee...

4 days 19 hours ago
Jasmin Jakupovic

How did they get the AFSL in the first place? Given the green light by ASIC. This is terrible example of ASIC's incompet...

5 days 18 hours ago

AustralianSuper and Australian Retirement Trust have posted the financial results for the 2022–23 financial year for their combined 5.3 million members....

9 months 1 week ago

A $34 billion fund has come out on top with a 13.3 per cent return in the last 12 months, beating out mega funds like Australian Retirement Trust and Aware Super. ...

8 months 4 weeks ago

The verdict in the class action case against AMP Financial Planning has been delivered in the Federal Court by Justice Moshinsky....

9 months 1 week ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND