The corporate regulator’s current regulatory guide, which reflects the reforms to the anti-hawking regime under the Financial Sector Reform, includes the application to all financial products, the extension of in-person meetings and telephone calls to “real-time interaction in the nature of a conversation or discussion” without consumer consent and that consent only be valid for six weeks from the date it is given.
“These reforms strengthen and consolidate the three existing hawking prohibitions into a single prohibition covering all financial products,” ASIC Commissioner, Danielle Press, said.
“The reforms take a technology neutral approach, meaning the ban applies to all forms of real-time communication. The prohibition incorporates for the first time a definition of unsolicited contact, requiring that consent given by a consumer be positive, voluntary and clear.
“These reforms will give consumers greater control over the circumstances in which they are offered products, and prevent consumers being approached with unwanted products on cold-calls or through other unsolicited contacts. They will also prevent businesses relying indefinitely on consents from consumers.
“ASIC’s guidance gives additional clarity on how the changes may affect commercial practices, systems and processes. This will help industry prepare for compliance with the new regime once it commences.”
All interested stakeholders can provide feedback now through to 17 August.
ASIC will release its final guidance in September ahead of the guide’s commencement on 5 October.
I would love to see the same requirements imposed on politicians so they can only run for office and communicate with potential voters after they have permission in writing from these voters to do so.
This will do absolutely nothing to help and is an outdated approach to fix a problem in only the way a public servant would think of. It’s not going to stop cold calling. It’s not going to stop online media or spam emails. It’s not going to stop finfluencers. But should we expect ASIC to do anything effective when they seem to be more hung up on wording in SoAs, or a difference of opinion as to how insurance benefits ought to be calculated, or banning FORMER advisers (another gone today apparently)? Let’s be completely honest as finance professionals: SoAs, FDSes, Opt-Ins, RoAs, PDSes, etc, etc, etc – they offer no real material benefit for anyone. They protect no one. They’re wanted by no one. Except ASIC of course, who saw people occasionally being scammed out of money and as public servants and lawyers often do, saw mountains of paperwork with legal speak and over-disclosure that’s relevant to nothing and helpful to no one as being the bandaid solution to such issues. But then they didn’t follow suit with any other profession (lawyers, accountants, real estate agents, surgeons – I’m looking at you all!) and both level the playing field but also level “protections” for consumers.
ASIC’s new 6 week Anti-Hawking consent deadline will:
a) encourage more aggressive sales tactics from product flogging institutions, in an effort to close the deal within 6 weeks
b) give industry funds an excuse to expire client authorities after 6 weeks, if they engage an independent financial adviser (instead of one of their own, conflicted, in-house salespeople)
c) force consumers to make quick decisions on important financial matters
d) all of the above
But Ms Hume and ASIC are fine for the Finfluencers to sell whatever pump and dump schemes they like on Instagram. Regs free.
Remember Ms Hume saying last week consumers had to use some of their own sense.
That only applies to Instagram.
Whilst Real Advisers have to treat clients like 2 year old babies and spoon feed them mountains of BS SoAs, FDS, Fee Consent, Reviews, FSGs, RoAs, Privacy disclosure, etc on and on and on because heaven forbid Ms Hume and ASIC can’t have Advisers Clients use any common sense.
Yes, it is quite strange. Unsophisticated (often young) social media consumers should use common sense but advice customers need to sign 3-8 times to confirm what they are paying. Perhaps advisers are doing too good a job looking after their clients so they have to be shut down while Instagram influencers and others are creating a generation of lost and hurt people.