The corporate regulator announced this week that it consulted FASEA on an example ROA it put together to help financial advisers when providing advice that is confirmed to be “consistent with advisers’ obligations under the FASEA Code of Ethics”.
In April, ASIC extended the relief measure that allows advisers to provide a record of advice (ROA) rather than a statement of advice (SOA) to existing clients requiring advice due to the impact of the pandemic.
ASIC decided to keep the measure after consulting with industry, stating some advice practices have found it useful.
The ROA relief measure has been extended to 15 October and is set out in a new legislative instrument, ASIC Corporations (COVID-19—Advice-related Relief) Instrument 2021/268.
ASIC has said it will continue to track how appropriate the measure is, indicating it could end the relief before the six-month period, or extend it beyond the deadline.
This is insane. If this is the best the Regulator and FASEA can come up with, we have serious problems.
Even the most casual analysis confirms that example ROA referenced wouldn’t pass a compliance review.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/activity-6821622764999454720-IvRN
I disagree Julian. This example of an RoA used under the relief addresses what the law requires. Those who don’t believe it’s compliant have probably become accustomed to excessively long winded advice documents that repeat themselves, that incorporate by reference and then proceed to include the information again anyway…and so on.
The real problem is fear of AFCA – which leads to licensees and advisers building enormous documents that go well above and beyond.
An inquiry into AFCA and some framework to increase consumer accountability for decisions to instruct on goals and accept recommendations – instead of holding advisers accountable – would go a long way to fixing many of the over-compliance measures adopted by industry.