‘Novelty’ not a regulatory risk for ASIC

16 November 2021
| By Laura Dew |
image
image
expand image

The ‘novelty’ of a financial product should not be considered as a risk factor, according to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), as it assesses the risk of the collapsed Sterling Income Trust.

In its submission to the Senate inquiry into Sterling Income Trust, the regulator said one of the risks of the product was its novelty. However, it disputed that this categorisation should be brought in as a risk factor.

Sterling Income Trust was sold to investors as a ‘lease for life’ where their long-term tenancy was linked to investment performance. Investors were told the returns from their initial lump sum payment would be sufficient to cover the rent on the long-term lease and that would not be required to make any other payments towards rent, a strategy described by ASIC as “novel and high risk”.

When the scheme later collapsed, investors were left unable to pay their rent. This was particularly devasting for around 17% of investors who were dependant on the investment for their access to housing.

ASIC said it should not include the novelty of a product going forward would as it was a hard to determine what fit into this category.

“In ASIC’s view, ‘novelty’ should not be introduced as a risk factor in our criteria for regulatory enforcement action. The ‘novelty’ of a product is subjective and hard to define,” ASIC said.

“More fundamentally, imposing a higher regulatory burden on ‘novel’ products would be inconsistent with one of the aims of the Australian financial services regulatory regime, which is to promote competition, innovation and flexibility and enable retail investors to have access to a wide range of products.

“Nevertheless, ASIC considers that the ‘novelty’ of a financial product does already interact with our existing guidance for financial industry regulation. The Australian financial regulatory system’s focus on conduct and disclosure regulation means that any ‘novel’ features of financial products (along with any other relevant, non-novel features) must be clearly and adequately disclosed in the relevant product documents, to allow investors and consumers to make informed decisions in a transparent market.”

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...

1 week 1 day 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...

1 week 1 day 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...

1 week 2 days 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 2 weeks 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. ...

9 months ago

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

9 months 2 weeks ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND