On Wednesday, 23 March, ASIC said it is seeking out “misleading performance and risk representations” in promotional material, including search engine advertising, targeting retail investors and possibly “unsophisticated” wholesale investors.
ASIC said its surveillance comes due to concerns that consumers seeking reliable or high returns are being misled about the performance and risks of funds they are investing in.
“ASIC remains concerned that managed fund promoters continue to target consumers, particularly retirees or those planning for retirement, with ambiguous or misleading performance and risk representations,” ASIC deputy chair Karen Chester said.
“Where we identify fund marketing of concern, we will also review the corresponding product disclosure statements, websites and target market determinations to assess if the marketing claims are misleading.”
The regulator has previously taken action against fund managers for misleading marketing or advertising, including Mayfair 101 who was ordered to pay a combined penalty of $30 million last year.
La Trobe Financial Asset Management was also hit with a $750,000 fine in November for the same accusations.
“ASIC is committed to protecting consumers where misleading marketing practices run counter to their interests,” Ms Chester said.
“If we identify misleading conduct, we will take prompt action to disrupt behaviours by deploying across our regulatory tools – from administrative intervention through to enforcement action if warranted.”
Common issue on Facebook with companies falsely or incorrectly advertising products. Needs to be better opportunity to forward these people to ASIC
How about Hesta advertising their fund only costs $1.20 per week on a dedicated web page with letters so large it takes up 80% of the page….or another super fund advertising they returned 15% and in small letters they’ve selected the time period to suit them , and it’s two years out of date….not to mention the “balanced option” issue….. oh wait….they’re all Union Super funds and untouchable. They set the precedent and got away with it and if it’s good for them it should be good for the rest of the industry.
Wow, ASIC is now investigating fund managers for understating risk and overstating performance while leaving the main perpetrators of this behaviour alone….Industry Super Funds have been doing this for 20 years. Balanced options with 93% growth assets. It’s ridiculous.
And a hefty chunk of that growth exposure in illiquid assets.
Even the Governments / APRA’s own Heat Map confirmed HESTA Balanced Fund with 94% Growth Assets.
[b]And what does ASIC do about it = NOTHING. [/b]
Industry super can do no wrong.
ASIC will never bust Industry Super.
ASIC are Corrupt.
I know a chap who was banned from the industry for placing a client’s Super in a Balanced portfolio with growth assets of 70% in the first year and decreasing automatically each year after as the level of growth assets & risks were deemed too high by the ASIC delegate – because the client (who didn’t make a complaint at all) ended up choosing to not go ahead with the advice and went with an industry super’s “Balanced” account which had 93% Growth assets and no decline in such holdings over time….because it was called “Balanced” so was therefore deemed more appropriate to the client by ASIC despite this information being given to the hearing. I think it’s about time Federal Members of Parliament are approached by not only Advisers but also their clients because it’s increasingly clear to everyone that ASIC is just massively undereducated, wrongfully motivated against Advisers, and not doing anything at all to actually enhance or protect consumer outcomes. They’re all about the media but add no value whatsoever.
and yet La Trobe, $750,000 fine. Dover = license suspended & advisers up the creek. Sam Henderson flawed FSG = banned. Spelling mistake on a defective FDS= $100,000 fine. Some double standards going on here.