Transparency needed on ASIC unmet needs project

ASIC/

20 August 2021
| By Jassmyn |
image
image image
expand image

Questions need to be asked regarding why the corporate regulator sees it unnecessary to publish the 433 submissions it received for its consultation paper on access to affordable financial advice.

The reason why the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) needs to be asked this is given the already negative views of its exponentially increasing levy for financial advisers, it needs to explain why it is not releasing information that has been paid for by advisers.

ASIC revealed to a Parliamentary committee that it had spent $386,480 on its unmet advice needs project, which went towards staffing and three pieces of commissioned research. 

Given the regulator employed external consultants, it is only fair advisers should be able to access the submissions made as the ASIC levy is paid for by advisers and covers all sorts of expenditure including enforcement activity that does not involve most advisers.

The justifications ASIC has used to not publish the submissions include the fact that it will soon publish a document that captures a “high-level summary of key issues raised in the submissions and provides public transparency of the issues raised”, some submissions were provided in confidence, and that individuals might not welcome publication of their submissions.

However, opting not to publish submissions seems contrary to the regulator claiming their soon-to-be published document is transparent given nobody will be able to cross check what has been said in submissions and what had been published in the document. 

Not only this, ASIC could redact personal information from the submissions to get around confidentiality issues.

It would be wise for ASIC to be more transparent about the work they do on advice, especially when it is funded by the advice industry, as its levy has been under scrutiny by not only the industry but by parliamentarians who have called the levy unsustainable.

Transparency would be welcomed by the industry to know what they are actually funding and it is likely ASIC will continue to be questioned on its levy justification.

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 3 weeks ago

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

5 months ago

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

7 months 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. ...

3 weeks 4 days ago

The FSCP has issued a written direction to an adviser who charged clients “extraordinary fees” for inappropriate and conflicted advice, as well as encouraged them to swit...

1 week ago

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

2 weeks 3 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