Planners carry greatest regulatory onus

financial-services-industry/financial-advice/financial-planners/financial-planning/FOFA/financial-advisers/director/PIS/

13 January 2015
| By Mike Taylor |
image
image
expand image

Inconsistencies exist between the responsibilities of directors and trustees of investment companies and responsible entities and those of financial planners which are serving to undermine consistent regulation of the financial services industry, according to PIS parent company, the Centrepoint Alliance.

Centrepoint has used its submission to the Senate Inquiry into the Scrutiny of Financial Advice to point out that while financial planners must bare a heavy regulatory burden, it is not a burden that is being by others in the financial services industry.

It said while failure by financial planners and their licensees to meet their regulatory obligations would see them being held solely or predominantly responsible for the client's losses, even though the consumer's financial losses may have been ultimately caused by the actions of the Responsible Entity, the directors or trustees of the investment company or trust.

"It is not Centrepoint's submission that advisers should have similar defences to directors and trustees or a loosening of the current financial advice laws," the submission said. "However, it would appear unjustifiably inconsistent when a director of an unlisted property company, such as Westpoint Corporation or Prime Retirement Trust, can have access to a loosely defined defence against claims of inappropriate conduct while the financial advisers who recommended investments in that company (often relying on investment ratings from a rating agency) have the onus to establish that several layers of obligations had been met."

It said that there certainly appeared to be a disproportionately greater risk for financial advisers than for other participants in the industry, "which creates a barrier to entry for financial advisers".

Financial advice laws should not be exempt from review and scrutiny, but they should not be considered in isolation from the conduct of other participants in the financial services industry," the submission said. "A holistic approach to assessments of financial advice and services laws, rather than a compartmentalised or segmented scale of inquiry, should always be the guiding measure."

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?...

2 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 ...

2 months 3 weeks ago

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

4 months 4 weeks ago

ASIC has suspended the Australian Financial Services Licence of a Melbourne-based financial advice firm....

1 week 5 days ago

The corporate regulator has issued infringement notices to three AFSLs whose financial advisers provided personal advice to a retail client while unregistered....

2 weeks 3 days ago

ASIC has released the results of its first adviser exam to be held in 2025, with 241 candidates attempting the test....

3 weeks 1 day ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND