No further compensation for Trio direct and SMSF investors
Collapsed Trio Capital direct and self-managed superannuation fund (SMSF) investors not covered by the compensation framework will not be provided further compensation, according to Assistant Treasurer Kelly O'Dwyer.
O'Dwyer said the Government had already provided $71.1 million in compensation to eligible investors but neither of the groups of investors were covered by the compensation framework under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (SIS Act).
"Because they are not covered by the SIS Act, in good faith the Government considered whether there were any other relevant contributing factors to the losses suffered by these investors, which would call for compensation to be paid," she said.
"The Government considered the action taken by the financial regulators, ASIC [Australian Securities and Investments Commission] and APRA [Australian Prudential Authority], and is satisfied that in relation to the collapse of Trio, both regulators carried out their roles and responsibilities appropriately, in accordance with the law and the regulatory framework."
O'Dwyer noted that a third group of investors had been advised that the Government could not consider compensation under the SIS Act because no application for compensation had been made by the trustee of the super fund.
Trio collapsed in 2009 and there have been five official reviews regarding Trio, or aspects of the collapse over the last six years.
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.
