Australian regulatory protection ‘inferior’

ASIC financial planning FOFA chairman australian securities and investments commission federal government

3 July 2014
| By Mike |
image
image
expand image

Australia's regulatory protection of investors is inferior to that offered by other jurisdictions and the chairman of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), Greg Medcraft is guilty of a laissez faire attitude, according to financial services commentator and co-founder of FinaMetrica, Paul Resnik.

Commenting on the recent release of the Senate Committee report into the performance of ASIC, Resnik said the Australian regulator had an important role in protecting consumers against bad financial advice and taking action against advisers where unsuitable advice is given.

"ASIC's attitude to date has been too hands-off, as the Senate enquiry noted. Only as recently as last week, the ASIC Chairman Greg Medcraft said ‘being a free enterprise person, I would rather people sort out the issues between themselves rather than involving ASIC,' referring to disputes between advisers and consumers.

"He [Medcraft] also indicated he was happy for the private sector to take actions against dodgy advisers via litigation funds or class actions, rather than ASIC itself," Resnik said "Such a laissez-faire attitude does little to instil consumers' confidence that their interests will be protected by the regulator."

He claimed that such an approach also did not reflect an appreciation of the power imbalance between advisory businesses, which were now largely owned by the big banks, and consumers, many of whom are retirees and more often than not, financially illiterate.

"What we are seeing today is the result of poor decisions made by successive governments," Resnik said. "Initially, when the Federal Government began shifting responsibility for retirement from themselves to the community, they created a demand for advice but left it to industry to satisfy that advice. In the early 1990s, ASIC chose to go down a disclosure path rather than a quality of advice route. Hence, amongst other things, the very low entry standards required for financial advisors."

"The Government is ultimately responsible for the legislative and regulatory framework. What we have seen from the industry and the regulator over the last 20 years is only what could have been expected given the framework set," he said.

 

 

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

MARKET INSIGHTS

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

1 month 2 weeks ago

This verdict highlights something deeply wrong and rotten at the heart of the FSCP. We are witnessing a heavy-handed, op...

1 month 3 weeks ago

Interesting. Would be good to know the details of the StrategyOne deal....

1 month 4 weeks ago

SuperRatings has shared the median estimated return for balanced superannuation funds for the calendar year 2024, finding the year achieved “strong and consistent positiv...

1 week 3 days ago

Original bidder Bain Capital, which saw its first offer rejected in December, has returned with a revised bid for Insignia Financial....

3 days 20 hours ago

Specialist wealth platform provider Mason Stevens has become the latest target of an acquisition as it enters a binding agreement with a leading Sydney-based private equi...

4 weeks 1 day ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS