Reviewing advice verging on “Python-eseque silly walk”

federal court Financial Circle AFSL

image
image
expand image

The Federal Court’s decision to penalise Financial Circle for failing to meet its obligations has meant Australian Financial Services licensees are now legally required to take ‘reasonable steps’ to comply with their obligations, which Mills Oakley partner, Mark Bland, says might make licensees think what’s expected of them amounts to a “Python-esque silly walk”.

In its judgment, the Federal Court ordered Financial Circle to pay $9 million in pecuniary penalties for misleading conduct, unconscionable conduct, unlicensed credit activities and failure to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance with FoFA advice obligations. $1 million of the fine was applied for the failure to take reasonable steps.

Bland said the most interesting thing for licensees is what ‘reasonable steps’ was said to mean, which is to:

  • Take reasonable steps to ensure representatives comply with financial services laws; and
  • Take reasonable steps to ensure representatives comply with best interests, appropriate advice, incomplete advice warnings and client priority.

The court’s ‘reasonable steps’ considerations became a question of whether the licensee had “adequate policies and procedure in place to ensure its advisers complied”.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission brought in an expert report to determine what was “adequate”, which included procedures that reflected “reasonable industry practice”.

And, Bland said while many items are unremarkable, a few licensees might quietly start doing these a little better:

  • Regular and targeted risk-based monitoring and supervision of advisers; and
  • Regular review of its measures, processes and procedures.

As a minimum, reasonable industry practices includes pre-vetting or peer-review and escalation, something Bland said he’d be interested in the statistics on how many licensees subject all advice to pre-vet or peer views.

“Licensees may feel like, with the increasing cost burden of compliance, pre-vetting or peer-reviewing all advice is verging on a Pythonesque silly walk. But in light of this decision, it needs to be carefully considered,” he said.

“How this will apply to a particular licensee will turn on its particular circumstances, but this is a matter that no licensee wants to discover through the courts. What has been revealed in the Royal Commission hearings and interim report is that licensees need to revisit how they comply with their general obligations.”

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 3 weeks ago

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

2 months ago

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

2 months 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...

2 weeks 2 days ago

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

1 week 2 days ago

The FAAA has secured CSLR-related documents under the FOI process, after an extended four-month wait, which show little analysis was done on how the scheme’s cost would a...

1 week ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS