Speaking to journalists on the sidelines of the ASIC Annual Forum in Sydney yesterday, Mr Medcraft said there have been sufficient inquiries into the sector already.
“I think the time for inquiries is finished,” he said. “I think what we need now is action, and action is already underway.
“FOFA is now implemented, we’ve got the financial advice register, we’ve got the recommendations on the financial adviser exam from the senate inquiry, we’ve got recommendations from the Financial System Inquiry.
“So we’ve got things being implemented, and then maybe we have government decisions impending. So I think before we jump into more inquiries I think we just see the outcome.”
Mr Medcraft said the onus is now on the financial advice industry to “win the trust and confidence of Australians” rather than its being on regulators or politicians.
The comments follow assistant treasurer Josh Frydenberg telling ifa the government is also opposed to a royal commission, despite the claims of Senator John Williams that support for such an inquiry is growing among the members of the Coalition backbench.
“We have no plans for a royal commission but have responses to a number of inquiries – FSI, PJC and the ASIC inquiry,” Mr Frydenberg said.
“We are looking at strengthening the powers of ASIC in a number of areas and I have spoken to the head of ASIC about the most recent episode at NAB and he said those investigations are of utmost importance.”
Agree with Jeff Morris. I wonder if Compliance Steve is one of those typical compliance officers at a licensee sitting in his ivory tower pointing the stick at all the advisers on the front line but never actually provided advice himself – Easier said than done mate!
Also please remember this – there will always be bad eggs and cowboys in every industry, even at the highest levels of government and large corporations so you will never have a 100% rotten-egg free business OK – deal with it!
Well said Jeff
Compliance Steve you asked what I’m doing to rid the industry of the bad eggs, which is pretty funny. You may have had a nice cup of tea with Mr Medcraft but this is a rather flimsy basis for the assertions you make. I have seen ASIC “in action” at close quarters and they cut a very sorry figure. I have also read the scathing 547 page report of the Senate Inquiry into ASIC, did you do so before rushing to grant them absolution? Getting ASIC to “fully follow up and take action on the things they already know” is indeed part of the problem but, from personal experience, this is more a question of will and competence than resources. In any case the Royal Commission will not be about simply finding things for ASIC to deal with, as you imply. It will be more about addressing the comprehensive failure of ASIC as a regulator of financial services across the spectrum from financial advice, product providers, mortgage lending, liquidators and consumer protection – and finding a better way ahead
Really? Having met Greg Metcalf at the Annual ASIC FORUM over the last two days I have no doubt he will get the job done and really does not deserve the Vile and Hated remarks some of you make, A royal commission would be a waste of money and would be better directed to ASIC to fully follow up and take action on the things they already know. There budget has been continually cut in sucessive years for no reason than to save money. He stated he has never managed an entity before where he does not have the funds to do what he wants. I am impressed with the man’s background and wonder why he sticks around you should be lobbying your local pollies to get them more funding.. in the meantime what are you doing to rid the industry of the bad eggs?? We all have a role to play and throwing stones is not the way to do it.
I wonder what skeletons in the closet would be discovered if there was a royal commission enquiry into ASIC and the type of Labor & union people they’re all having lunch with and getting donations and kick-backs from? No wonder Medcraft was quick to dismiss that idea!
The issue of ensuring appropriate advice is being overlooked. A commission should uncover management “sales” practices which is not financial planning but market share and when uncovered the planner cops the bullet, deserved or not and the real cause in management practices is not held accountable. The real issue is not being addressed. Just as a national “product” exam only enforces a sales culture and not a professional culture. With respect, Mr ASIC, you are ill informed or swayed as to what may be uncovered. band aids do not fix deep seated problems. Address the real issues and your job will be much easier. The recent senate enquiry uncovered truths which were hidden, they fessed up when exposed and what happened next–silence is golden. Too big to take on ???
ASIC = hopeless.
I am an adviser (who doesn’t work for a bank or fund manager) and I welcome a Royal Commission
Well, what a surprise !
Of course ASIC would not want a Royal Commission. Their level of incompetence would be found out.
Re CBA they had the benefit of whistle blowers and did absolutely nothing for a long, long time.
Exactly.
Let’s hope Trowbridge takes notice of this comment by ASIC. Nearly all the examples of bad insurance advice being bandied about are historical, and would no longer be allowed in a post FOFA world.
ASIC opposes a Royal Commission that would be primarily about exposing ASIC’s systemic incompetence and failure as a regulator. Conflict of interest, anyone?
I am sure Mr Medcraft would not want further enquiry as the most likely outcome will be the exposure of more failure by ASIC to properly supervise the industry pursuant to pre-existing regulations. If vertical integration continues FOFA will be a pointless exercise in the face of the obvious opportunity to abuse market power which large institutions appear simply unable to resist. For independent and highly professional advisers the mountain of pointless paperwork simply adds to cost and inefficiency.
Wow. Now our industry is included in the same sentence, and royal commission as white collar crime.
Maybe the financial adviser exam should be mandatory before granting an own AFSL to crooked property spruiking firms posing as advisers, rather than imposing it on already qualified educated advisers. You have a record of qualifications now, use it wisely.