FASEA standards trump other codes if stricter

TPB/julie-berry/smsf-association-national-conference/SMSF/SMSFA/FASEA/

21 February 2020
| By Jassmyn |
image
image
expand image

The Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) code of ethics’ controversial Standard 3 is stricter than its Tax Practitioners Board (TPB) code’s equivalent and tax financial advisers need to be aware of the similarities and differences of both codes, the board has said.

TPB board member, Julie Berry, spoke at the SMSF Association National Conference and said tax financial advisers would not be able abide by the TPB’s Code Item 5 on conflicts of interest as FASEA’s Standard 3 was stricter and all relevant providers needed to comply with both codes.

TPB Code Item 5 stated that providers “must have in place adequate arrangements to manage conflicts of interest”.

“In cases where there are conflicts anticipated you must take steps to control or avoid or disclose conflict,” Berry said.

“If a conflict is disclosed to all parties and authority to proceed is given then according to our code you can continue to act providing you have adequate arrangements in place to manage the conflict. But FASEA’s position is very different.”

FASEA’s Standard 3 stated that the adviser must not act, advise or refer with a conflict of interest or duty.

“That effectively means that FASEA’s requirements are stricter because it says you can’t act even if it can be managed,” Berry said.

“There is still a lot of clarity being sought around this and associations have lobbied hard for more clarity.

“I would suggest if you’re looking to participate in any new referrals or anything it must abide with the new code. Whilst the TPB have more flexible with the existing arrangements I don’t think we can get so much leeway on the new ones.”

Berry noted that the TPB was looking to expand its sanction powers to provide more effective action on providers that breached its code.

She said these powers could expand to infringement notices, enforceable undertakings, interim and immediate suspensions, and lifetime bans.

Currently, bans only had a maximum of five years.

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 3 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 4 weeks ago

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

5 months ago

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

2 weeks ago

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

2 weeks 5 days ago

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

3 weeks 3 days ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND