Questions around lack of submissions to ASIC Senate inquiry

compliance/financial-planning/ASIC/FOFA/financial-planning-advice/commonwealth-financial-planning/asset-management/australian-securities-and-investments-commission/

6 August 2013
| By Staff |
image
image image
expand image

The appearance of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) before a Senate committee raises questions about whether the regulator has been fair in carrying out its task and also about the reluctance of the industry to make comments on that task. 

Instreet managing director George Lucas said the issue of financial planning advice provided by Commonwealth Financial Planning in 2007 had prompted the question regarding whether ASIC had been fair in carrying out its task. 

Lucas said the current Senate Economics References Committee inquiry into ASIC was the one of the few times it had been asked to account for its actions against a large financial advice provider.  

However, Lucas said, many major advice providers were concerned about the confidentiality of submissions. 

“They are concerned about whether their submission would remain confidential and have received legal advice that there was no upside to making a critical submission of the corporate regulator,” he said. 

So far 45 submissions have been received with only 11 carrying names of personal investors. A further five were listed as confidential, one submission was from ASIC and the remainder listed as 'name withheld’. However an examination of these latter submissions shows that many are also from personal investors concerned with ASIC’s performance. 

Lucas said the inquiry and ASIC’s appearance before it were notable because the regulator did not go to court regularly and had avoided head-to-head confrontation.  

“ASIC has engaged predominantly in mediation but does not answer to an ombudsman, so appearing before a Senate committee is the closest it will get to giving account for its actions,” Lucas said. 

Lucas said a side-effect of the Future of Financial Advice (FOFA) regime would be that ASIC would likely have to oversee a few larger advisory groups rather than many smaller groups. 

“It is easy to understand why ASIC would prefer to work with larger organisations - they are easier to watch - but this approach stifles competition and innovation,” Lucas said. 

“However the industry does have its swings, and at present is has swung to be big side of town because of FOFA and local and global regulations around banking and asset management.”

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

MARKET INSIGHTS

The succession dilemma is more than just a matter of commitments.This isn’t simply about younger vs. older advisers. It’...

1 week 4 days ago

Significant ethical issues there. If a relationship is in the process of breaking down then both parties are likely to b...

1 month ago

It's not licensees not putting them on, it's small businesses (that are licensed) that cannot afford to put them on. The...

1 month 1 week ago

AMP has settled on two court proceedings: one class action which affected superannuation members and a second regarding insurer policies. ...

4 days 7 hours ago

ASIC has released the results of the latest adviser exam, with August’s pass mark improving on the sitting from a year ago. ...

2 weeks ago

The inquiry into the collapse of Dixon Advisory and broader wealth management companies by the Senate economics references committee will not be re-adopted. ...

3 weeks ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND
Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
moneymanagement logo