ASIC FASEA submission asked for ethical dilemma examples
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) asked the Financial Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) to consider including ethical dilemma examples to understand the meaning of “inappropriate personal advantage” in regards to the code of ethics Standard 3.
Money Management obtained a copy of the ASIC submission that, at the time of writing, was still unable to be accessed on the FASEA website.
The submission matched material Money Management obtained earlier in the year via a Parliamentary Committee that said further guidance about the standard’s scope in the form of examples would encourage improved behaviour by financial advisers.
On Standard 3 ASIC said: “We encourage FASEA to consider including an example of an ethical dilemma involving a breach of the code that does not involve a clear breach of the law. We think that this would better assist in understanding the meaning of ‘inappropriate personal advantage’ in Standard 3.
“In addition, we encourage FASEA to provide more context in relation to the situation in the example in the second dot point in paragraph 38. For example, it would be helpful if FASEA could state more specifically how the financial adviser’s duty to one client conflicts with their duty to their other client.”
Recommended for you
The Australian Financial Complaints Authority has shared how much its member fees will rise in the next financial year.
Wealth managers have said they are experiencing difficulties in aligning their company’s in-house views with the ever-increasing needs of clients, according to MSCI.
The financial advice industry is experiencing a “champagne problem” regarding pricing, with advice firms seeing no need to cut their prices to remain competitive.
Marking a decade offering managed accounts in Australia, BlackRock has elaborated on the changes it has seen in their usage by financial advisers, with net client flows rising from 4 per cent to 25 per cent.
