Principles on conflicts of interest
Members of the Financial Planning Association (FPA) will soon have to comply with a new conflict code, which is expected to come into force by the end of this month. Here are the principles of that code”
1. A financial planner will provide a client with clear, concise, and comprehensive information so that the client will understand the advice and service being offered and its cost.
2. Financial planning advice should be in an independent form, and not tied to product recommendations.
3. Where it is appropriate to recommend a product to a client, all FPA members should only offer products that suit the needs of the client, and do not bring the industry into disrepute.
4. No FPA member shall receive or reward any remuneration or benefits that are biased against, or may not be in the interests of the client.
5. A financial planner must disclose to a client any existing or potential financial interests (such as shareholdings or equity entitlements) they, or an entity in which they have an interest in, have in the products or platforms they use and/or in their Australian Financial Services (AFS) licensee or related entity.
6. There should be separate corporate governance in place between an AFS licensee and related fund managers, and product/platform manufacturers within the same group.
7. FPA members have a responsibility to abide by the FPA principles to address any real or perceived conflicts of interest.
Recommended for you
Insignia Financial has reported a statutory net loss after tax of $17 million in its first half results, although the firm has noted cost optimisation means this is an improvement from a $50 million loss last year.
With alternative funds being described as “impossible” for fund managers to target towards advisers without the support of BDMs for education, Money Management explores the evolving nature of the distribution role.
Former financial adviser Bradley Grimm has lost his appeal to have his sentence overturned in the Supreme Court of Victoria after judges ruled the conditions were “lenient” for his actions.
Following ASIC’s report into AFSLs’ adoption of AI last year, two DASH executives have urged financial advice practices to consider AI within their risk governance frameworks or risk regulatory scrutiny.
