The regulator claimed that by following the advice, clients exceeded the superannuation contribution caps or untaxed plan cap, resulting in them paying more tax.
ASIC acted after it identified multiple instances from breach reports submitted by Australian Financial Services licensees.
It said it convened multiple sitting panels of the Financial Services and Credit Panel (FSCP) because it was concerned the financial advisers had failed to comply with the best interests duty and gave appropriate advice to their clients.
In a statement, ASIC said it was also concerned that the advisers had breached the Financial Planners and Advisers Code of Ethics.
The panels have so far given:
- Two financial advisers reprimands.
- One financial adviser a written direction to appoint an independent person to audit the next 10 pieces of advice intended for retail clients and submit a report to ASIC on the adviser’s compliance.
- One financial adviser a direction to undertake continuing professional education in the next 12 months (in addition to their ordinary education and training requirements).
The FSCP’s decisions are published on the FSCP Outcomes Register.
ASIC said it continues to refer financial advisers to the FSCP to address and highlight the misconduct, its impact on consumers and the importance of financial advisers complying with their advice and conduct obligations while always acting in a manner that promotes the value of diligence.
It continued that unsuitable superannuation advice resulting in adverse consumer outcomes remains a key issue for 2025.
“Advisers must identify their clients’ personal circumstances in relation to superannuation caps, so that advice provided is in their clients’ best interests,” it said.
“Where we identify thematic misconduct involving financial advisers, we will consider taking regulatory action including referring financial advisers to the FSCP.”
The relevant AFS licensees had compensated the affected clients for any financial and non-financial loss suffered.
Furthermore, the regulator reminded financial advisers they must identify their clients’ personal circumstances in relation to superannuation caps so that the advice provided is in their clients’ best interests.
Additionally, it stated that AFS licensees should take steps to ensure their representatives are adequately trained around giving superannuation advice involving contributions and superannuation rollover and remind advisers to remain diligent with their advice processes to act in the client’s best interests.
Finally, it reminded AFS licensees they must have arrangements for monitoring and supervising representatives and for remediating clients if non-compliant superannuation advice is identified.
Which is worse:
1. An adviser recommending a contribution to super that exceeds the cap and the client gets their money back.
2. ASIC not investigating Dixons when they were first warned about it and thousands of clients losing their money, never to get it back.
C’mon ASIC do your job properly and stop the big issues.
A missed opportunity to crucify an otherwise well-meaning and client-focused adviser.
Which is worse? An adviser recommending a client go under their concessional contribution cap out of fear of client going over the cap. $1,000 under for client on top marginal rate = loss of $320 net tax benefit.
An adviser recommending a client go over their concessional contribution cap $1,000 (by accident due to an extra employer contribution / over time / bonus) = NIL if amended notice of intent to claim deduction provided or if accountant submits the tax return anyway (knowing the client has gone over due to the ATO portal access) the client will have the tax deduction reversed (neutral position with tax offset for 15% Contributions Tax). No ECC since 2021…Where is the client harm?
Sure, Excess Non-Concessional Contributions are a much bigger problem but these can be avoided with proper access to the ATO Portal.
“Advisers must identify their clients’ personal circumstances in relation to superannuation caps, so that advice provided is in their clients’ best interests,” it stated.
Then the ATO refuses to give advisers access to the MyGov portal just to make it that little bit harder for advisers to do their job. Such an easy fix, but no the bureaucrats have to pretend they are doing a thorough job.
All advisers are bad people… because, they were born that way.
Hey Joe, tell us all about the Dixons debacle. How many years before the proverbial hit the fan did ASIC receive complaints about the unfolding debacle? What adverse outcomes did clients experience as a result of ASIC’s tardiness & indifference. Go on Joe. Tell us all about it. Don’t be shy.
Trying to divert into other so-called issues to avoid a proper investigation into Dixon Advisory. It’s similar to what they did as per below, alleged insurance churning based on manipulated & incomplete evidence. Coincidentally, it was on 2015 as well.
“Based on publicly available information, these matters were seemingly not investigated by the Regulator. The apparent focus of the ASIC investigation was on the financial advice – via the client advice files – rather than the business model. This allowed these practices to continue despite ASIC’s 2015 surveillance of Dixon Advisory, to the detriment of consumers”
This is what exactly happened to this financial planner that was permanently banned due to alleged insurance churning based on manipulated (evidence provided was false) & incomplete evidence (49 clients was complained & yet this financial planner was only given 20 client files). 3 independant experts was hired and what this financial planner explained was coincidentally similar to the findings of these experts.
This was around 2015 as well. ASIC acted very quick on this matter.
“Retraining and monitoring this financial planner was a better option considering the truth revealed”
Miscarriage of Justice.
Unlike accountant and the ATO who operate in the past, we have to give advice based on current data, projection and sometimes assumptions. Then we don’t have access to ATO records.
So blame the FP, what about addressing at least the Access to ATO records, better reporting from super funds!
Advisers are human, they make mistakes. Obviously over at ASIC they have never made a mistake…..
it is nigh on impossible to give accurate Concessional advice as several industry funds stop answering the phones in june when you are checking caps (hello Aust Super), or refuse to send the reports we need to advisers (only to the member), don’t have a website allowing advisers to look at the transactions for themselves to try to “predict” the remainder for the year, let alone that every 4 years you get a 27th fortnight in most payroll systems, employers control when funds are paid thru super stream not us, and then Super stream has such a slow “service guarantee” period. We literally have NO CONTROL over any of these things, but are expected to take responsibility for it??
Isn’t this information now available from the ATO?
Not to advisers. The low lifes at Treasury have said advisers can’t be trusted with such information. They would rather see consumers receive bad advice, so they can then persecute even more advisers.
I’m sure if doctors had to give medical advice without being permitted to access a patient’s medical records, that would lead to some mistakes as well.
Doctor’s do not access your medical records. They ask you questions. If you are not able to answer them, they can, in some limited circumstances get access to Medicare records. But they do not have God-tier access.
Yet they still have relevant access. Clearly missed the point
They can access the MyHealth record. My GP can go back years and look at different medications and procedures I have had.
ASIC’s desperate move is designed to take the focus away from the shoddy behaviour of Industry Funds.
Also way did ASIC chose to not impose a maximum fine on Australian Super rather than a token penalty. Remember advisors are being crippled by ASIC and CSLR levies and yet the Industry Funds get away with very light penalties funded by advisor levies.
ASIC’s latest crackdown on financial advisers over “poor superannuation advice” feels like a classic case of making a mountain out of a molehill. Let’s break this down: across Australia, around 2 million clients are serviced by roughly 15,000 advisers. Out of that massive pool, ASIC has zeroed in on four instances of less-than-ideal advice—yes, four—to justify dragging advisers before the Financial Services and Credit Panel (FSCP) and splashing headlines about it. Four cases. That’s not a systemic crisis; it’s not even a rounding error.
This is starting to look like ASIC’s go-to playbook: weaponizing the FSCP to paint the entire profession as incompetent or untrustworthy. Two reprimands, an audit direction, and some extra training slapped on one adviser—hardly the stuff of scandal. Yet here we are, with ASIC clutching its pearls and issuing stern warnings about “thematic misconduct.” What would it take for ASIC to ease up? Apparently, nothing short of zero FSCP referrals, which ASIC knows is not reality. Zero is only ever an authoritarian’s goal.
And where’s the FAAA in all this? Silent as usual, letting the profession take another public flogging from ASIC’s ideologues without so much as a peep. It’s frustrating but not surprising—times like these, they’re pros at staying on the sidelines while advisers get slandered.
Here’s the bigger picture, though: this feels like more than just regulatory overreach. There’s a meta-game at play. ASIC’s relentless focus on maligning advisers at every turn starts to look like a proxy move for industry super funds, who’ve long wanted back into the advice space—maybe through that shiny new class of adviser they keep floating. The strategy’s tried and tested: chip away at the reputation of professional advisers, call them “untrustworthy,” and position industry super as the noble alternative that’ll “look after customers better.” It’s a convenient narrative, and ASIC seems all too happy to play along.
When a supposedly independent government body gets this ideologically captured, it’s not enough to just grumble about it—someone needs to call it out publicly. Four cases out of millions doesn’t justify this circus. Advisers deserve better than being ASIC’s punching bag every time the regulator needs a headline.
100% correct
The IFA should adjust their title accordingly too. Shoddy framing of the issue is just as complicit
Advice is complex (and we all make mistakes). And how will they help this now let unqualified advisors give advice and open it up to accountants…..
And yet Treasury don’t think its a good idea for advisers to have access to the ATO information that could prevent some of these issues.
And where do accountants come into this? I see regular occurrences of advice to move from an industry or other fund to a SMSF with the only consideration being ‘they are more flexible’!
Or to invest in property with around $90K in the kitty- What a farce
If advisers were able to exercise the diligence required and access the ATO portal and get accurate Concessional and Non Concessional data, I am sure these types of cases would reduce significantly. Maybe ASIC should be chasing SMSF Property scheme promoters – a simple google search will direct them to several fine operators
Suggestion, maybe give advisers access to client ATO portals (the source of truth) instead of relying on clients and/or their accountants to provide super cap details.
It would be great if we got more detail in what went wrong in the above cases. I wonder if this could have been avoided if the advisers had access to the ATO Portal, which the FAAA is advocating for.
I find it hard to believe that these advisers make these errors on purpose. If errors have been made, I am sure the client has been remediated. This over policing needs to stop before the industry dies a slow death.
How about ASIC, ATO & the morons in Canberra who designed the system, give Advisers access to the necessary TBC & TSB,etc data on ATO portal.
Nah that would be too much to ask these Canberra morons to give us the critical info we must have to provide advice.
Canberra is sooooo messed up