Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
moneymanagement logo
 
 

AFA wants greater oversight of ASIC funding

AFA/cap/APRA/regulation/

16 December 2020
| By Mike |
image
image image
expand image

Greater oversight of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and how it operates is warranted amid confirmation that it has used revenue derived from industry funding to underwrite the writing of submissions for consumer groups, according to the Association of Financial Advisers (AFA).

AFA chief executive, Phil Kewin, said he found confirmation of the arrangement with respect to the funding of the consumer commissions “very disturbing” in circumstances where financial planning companies had been subjected in successive increases in the levies raised to fund both ASIC and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA).

“What this amounts to is effectively passing on the cost to financial advisers,” he said. “There needs to be more oversight of the ASIC funding model.”

Kewin was commenting on a Money Management report that ASIC had confirmed the use industry funding to support the consumer submissions.

Answering a question on notice from a Parliamentary Committee, ASIC said, while it lacked a dedicated budget, it would from time to time support a funding allocation of between $10,000 and $15,000 for the preparation of consumer submissions to an existing policy consultation process”.

The Parliamentary questioning of the ASIC funding model arose out of confirmation that ASIC’s Consumer Advisory Panel (CAP) had played a role in ensuring funding to two Griffith University academics to write a submission with respect to the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority code of ethics.

ASIC said in its answer to the Parliamentary committee that it consider that CAP funded submissions “have played an important role in ensuring the consumer voice is heard in consultation processes on issues that materially affect the lives of Australian consumers”.

Kewin said that in all the circumstances he believed there needed to be greater transparency around the origins of such submissions and whether they had been funded by ASIC, including the justification of why such funding was deemed necessary.

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 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

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

1 week 3 days 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. ...

2 weeks 3 days ago

While the profession continues to see consolidation at the top, Adviser Ratings has compared the business models of Insignia and Entireti and how they are shaping the pro...

2 weeks 5 days ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND