Stricter definitions around salesman and advisers not needed: Bobbin

compliance/financial-planner/financial-services-reform/financial-advisers/storm-financial/money-management/investment-advice/

27 April 2009
| By Lucinda Beaman |

The parliamentary inquiry into banking and financial services is sparking debate within the industry, with financial services lawyer Peter Bobbin responding to a submission recently made by a Queensland financial planner.

As reported by Money Management last week, Bruce Baker of Puzzle Financial Advice made a submission to the inquiry in which he suggested that regulations must ensure that “financially naïve” consumers be able to readily distinguish a “financial product salesperson from an adviser who is acting in the client’s best interest”.

“If Storm Financial was clearly identified as a financial product sales business … fewer consumers [might] have lost money,” Baker said.

Baker agrees with the UK Financial Services Authority’s view that consumers benefit from a differentiation between “independent investment advice and financial product sales”.

But Bobbin has responded by saying that “more regulation is not needed”, saying that existing law accounts for this need and as such “all the profession must do is follow the law”.

Bobin pointed to the November 2008 Queensland case of Evans vs Brannelly (a Westpoint decision). That case contained a quote which Bobbin believes negates the need for further regulations or definition around the roles played by financial product salesmen versus financial advisers.

“If people who call themselves investment advisers are going to act as financial product salesmen, they need to make it quite clear to the people with whom they are dealing that that is what they are doing, or they will be held to the duty of care appropriate if they are reasonably relied on as giving objective advice,” District Court Judge McGill said in his judgment.

“In my view, this case is showing that the courts will put the flesh to the skeletal framework that [Financial Services Reform] was seven years ago,” Bobbin said.

“Effectively, District Court Judge McGill is saying that if you say you are a financial planner then be one, if you are a product salesman then don’t call yourself a financial planner.”

As such, Bobbin said, “regulatory changes are not needed”.

“The law already recognises the difference.”

Bobbin believes this judgment should be “compulsory reading for all compliance professionals and advisers”.

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 2 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 2 weeks ago

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

4 months 3 weeks ago

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

5 days 11 hours ago

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

1 week 3 days ago

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

2 weeks 1 day ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND