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
A third private equity player has emerged in the bidding war to acquire Insignia Financial, rivalling Bain Capital and CC Capital.
The proportion of advisers working at a privately owned licensee rose to 78 per cent in the fourth quarter of 2024 as over 1,000 advisers left a diversified firm.
Advice around a client’s concessional contribution cap was the reason for the latest written direction by the Financial Services and Credit Panel.
The financial advice business has expanded its range of services with the introduction of Apt Wealth Legal Services to meet clients’ evolving needs in estate planning and family law.
