Another positive rating for APRA
The cost of regulation still weighs heavily on Australian financial services institutions, according to a new survey intended to rate the effectiveness of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA).
In a period during which APRA and its sister regulator, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), were the subject of serious criticism over their handling of the collapse of Trio/Astarra, the survey still described the results for APRA as "positive".
This was because the survey did not actually traverse the issues surrounding Trio/Astarra or question those directly involved and impacted by the collapse.
The two-yearly survey, undertaken for APRA by Australian Survey Research, confirmed that the actual cost of regulation had been a consistent issue over the three surveys conducted in 2009, 2011 and 2013.
The survey's top line assessment was that, overall, the results were "positive for APRA".
"Regulated entities and knowledgeable observers on average support APRA's framework and regulatory approach of principles-based supervision. A majority of respondents agree that APRA effectively enforces its prudential requirements and believe that APRA has had a positive impact on their industry," the analysis said.
It said areas scoring lowest and "which may benefit from attention" were consideration of the cost of regulation, harmonisation across regulatory authorities, becoming too prescriptive and not principles-based, and consistency of supervision.
Recommended for you
ASIC has issued infringement notices to two AFSLs over financial advisers providing personal advice while they were unregistered.
Australian retirees could increase their projected annual incomes by as much as 51 per cent through comprehensive financial advice, according to a Vanguard study, but cost continues to be an issue.
AMP has announced a senior appointment to its North leadership team, reinforcing the firm’s commitment to the advice industry.
Despite the financial adviser exam being rooted in ethics, two professional year advisers believe the lack of support and transparency from the regulator around the exam is unethical.
