ASIC said the royal commission’s recommendations reinforce and will inform the implementation of steps ASIC has been taking as part of a strategic program of change that commenced in 2018 to strengthen its governance and culture and to realign its enforcement and regulatory priorities.
“There are 12 recommendations that are directed at ASIC, or where the government’s response requires action now by ASIC, without the need for legislative change. ASIC is committed to fully implementing each of these,” ASIC said in a statement.
“Many of the recommendations made by the royal commission involve reforms ASIC advocated for in its earlier submissions to the royal commission and, in some cases, in earlier reviews and inquiries.”
These include:
• an expanded role for ASIC to become the primary conduct regulator in superannuation;
• the extension of Banking Executive Accountability Regime (BEAR) – like accountability obligations to firms regulated by ASIC, with their focus being on conduct;
• the end of grandfathering of Future of Financial Advice (FoFA) commissions;
• the extension of the proposed product intervention powers and design and distribution obligations to a broader range of financial products and services;
• the extension of ASIC’s role to cover insurance claims handling and the application of unfair contract terms laws to insurance;
• reforms to breach reporting; and
• ASIC being provided with a directions power.
Recommendation 1.8 – Amending the banking code
ASIC confirmed it will commence work immediately with the banking industry on appropriate amendments to the banking code in relation to each of these recommendations.
Recommendation 4.9 — Enforceable code provisions
ASIC will work with industry in anticipation of the Parliament legislating reforms in relation to codes and ASIC’s powers to provide for ‘enforceable code provisions’.
“This work will include a focus on which code provisions need to be made ‘enforceable code provisions’ on the basis they govern the terms of the contract made or to be made between the financial services provider and the consumer,” the regulator said.
“ASIC will also continue to work within the existing law to improve the quality of codes and code compliance.”
Recommendation 2.4 — Grandfathered commissions
The royal commission recommended that grandfathering provisions for conflicted remuneration should be repealed as soon as is reasonably practicable.
The government has agreed to end grandfathering of conflicted remuneration effective from 1 January 2021.
Consistent with the government’s response to this recommendation, ASIC said it will monitor and report on the extent to which product issuers are acting to end the grandfathering of conflicted remuneration for the period 1 July 2019 to 1 January 2021.
“This will include consideration of the passing through of benefits to clients, whether through direct rebates or otherwise,” ASIC said.
Recommendation 2.5 — Life risk insurance commissions
The royal commission recommended that when ASIC conducts its review of conflicted remuneration relating to life risk insurance products and the operation of the ASIC Corporations (Life Insurance Commissions) Instrument 2017/510, it should consider further reducing the cap on commissions in respect of life risk insurance products.
The final report recommended that unless there is a clear justification for retaining those commissions, the cap should ultimately be reduced to zero.
ASIC today confirmed it will implement this recommendation.
“ASIC will consider this recommendation and factors identified by the royal commission in undertaking its post implementation review of the impact of the ASIC Corporations Life Insurance Commissions Instrument 2017/510, which set commission caps and clawback amounts, and which commenced on 1 January 2018,” the regulator said.
As noted by the royal commission, and consistent with the government’s timetable, ASIC’s review will take place in 2021.
Recommendation 6.2 — ASIC’s approach to enforcement
The regulator said actions are already underway to adopt an approach of enforcement that considers whether a court should determine the consequences of a contravention.
In particular, ASIC has adopted a ‘Why not litigate?’ enforcement stance and initiated an internal enforcement review (IER).
“ASIC’s commission has determined to create a separate Office of Enforcement within ASIC and this will be implemented in 2019,” the regulator said.
“ASIC will take the IER report and the royal commission’s comments on it into account, as it makes its final changes to its enforcement policies, procedures and decision-making structures to deliver on its ‘Why not litigate? enforcement stance.”
Recommendation 6.10 — Co-operation memorandum
Together with APRA, ASIC has agreed to implement this recommendation, including in relation to any statutory obligation to cooperate, share information and notify APRA of breaches or suspected breaches, that the government puts in place as part of its response to recommendation 6.9.
Recommendation 6.12 — Application of the BEAR to regulators
The royal commission recommended that both APRA and ASIC internally formulate and apply a management accountability regime similar to those established by BEAR.
ASIC agrees to implement this recommendation. In anticipation of the government’s establishment of the external oversight body, ASIC will commence work on developing accountability maps consistent with the BEAR.
ASIC will consider the approach of the Financial Conduct Authority in implementing this recommendation. ASIC will develop and publish accountability statements before the end of 2019.




BY 2020 ALL the insurers will be going broke due to lack of new business being written and forever increasing premiums forcing existing policy holders to cancel cover. Then they will lobby our numb skulls in government to re-introduce 150% plus commissions as all the executive bonuses would have dried up. Just watch this space. deja vu the UK.
it’s like groundhog day. total fools. except you won’t be able to unwind this. because all the advisers will have exited the space.
The Royal Commission was given its outcome before it even started. Commission Hayne is a lawyer and retired high court judge. He’s career has been spent in a court room, not in business. It was clear from many of his statements that he (and many in Parliament) believes all financial planners work for the banks and still to this day, probably does not understand the collateral damage that is likely to be caused to many small businesses that operate in the advice space. ASIC will be doing anything they can now to look tough and like the Royal Commissioner, will overlook the potential bi-products to advisers and their clients, of some of their actions. I think many advisers support commissions going (with the exception of risk), but until legacy issues with CGT, Centrelink Grandfathering and fund managers actually rebating commissions to clients instead of keeping them for themselves, the blanket call for an immediate end to commissions needs to be more considered and less knee-jerk reaction.
I would like to make one observation about this article, which is “what else are ASIC going to say”? how about ” well we will give the recommendations careful consideration, consult with industry including advisers and manufacturers and report back on the most beneficial model to all concerned” ….. yeah Right ! they have so much blood on their hands through massive incompetence, they are only interested in saving face and jobs. this will be a farce and will end in tears
Two things.
1) Is Hayne even qualified enough to understand the industry. I believe not from his report and recommendations. Basically clueless and at best described as virtue signaling.
2) Who at ASIC will be awake long enough to implement these recommendations? When will staff there get there nigh nighs? They are so use to their sleep, I’m worried for them.
he is not qualified.
FASEA for Hayne so he is properly qualified and ethically educated to cast such wide sweeping changes.
belongs in an old persons home.
With regard to Life risk commissions can ASIC:
1. Confirm they will implement a less corrupt investigation instead of the one they did in report 413 which targeted a tiny number of advisers they had already pre-identified with the insurers and then had to to admit that once the LIF was passed and the same insurers provided them with correct lapse data that there was in fact not a churn issue. Or in other word that ASIC got it totally wrong.
2. Look at the impact in other countries. Specifically the UK where not having commissions was a disaster for under insurance and they had to back flip. In fact look at every country except the Netherlands (where the advice is tax deductible) and specifically the New Zealand market where their regulator did factual research.
Yes the Churn report and basis of the LIF was ODwyer, ASIC and her Bank cronnies working together to smash advisers to allow the Banks & Life companies to flog more completely Dodgy Direct Life Insurance. And wow didn’t Direct Life Insurance come up smelling like roses at the RC. NOT !!!
More education and no commissions ?
[quote=GPH]Recommendation 2.0 will be interesting, given it is uneconomical to actually provide (and implement) risk insurance advice now, why would anyone consider further reducing the cap? frankly it needs to be “increased” to at least 88/22. Can someone please explain how Joe average will be excited about paying a fee to receive risk (only) advice.[/quote]
.
This comment above is KEY. The life companies reduce the premium only a MINIMAL amount when zero commission is applied. The reduction will go NOWHERE NEAR the fee that RISK advisers will need to charge (even a minimal fee charged). Anyway, as we all should know by now, clients will NOT pay a fee for pure risk advice. NO, they will not, please don’t embarrass yourself by arguing otherwise it has been incontrovertibly proven by many experienced risk-only professionals over the last 10 years, including a structured 5-year long experiment I implemented. With as much respect as I can muster, those that argue against this either a) have never tried this in the field with [b]PURE RISK advice[/b] – NO investment/super OR b) simply do not know of what they speak c) have an alternate hidden agenda. Remember . . . risk ONLY – no cross collateralized investment advice, super or HNW clients. Mums and dads, millennials et al. Risk ONLY. [b]They will NOT pay fees[/b]. There, glad that’s put to bed!
.
The life companies will laugh all the way to the bank UNTIL they realise there are no advisers left to move their product. Then the consumer courts will be clogged with the negative [i](robo+clerks)[/i] claims experiences, THEN life companies will desperately try to recruit advisers again THEN they will discover the young ones left this once great industry for a better industry and the old ones (from where most of their business originated) have all retired in disgust of how the life companies shafted them by lowering commissions and lengthening responsibility periods.
Essentially my predication is the banks will continue to get off scott free and mid tier non aligned licensees will be shut down for minor compliance breaches. So much harder to provide independent advice. The Banks WIN WIN again.
Why?
Dear Junior ASIC staffer on $75,000.
We at the CBA are committed to a culture of compliance blah blah blah look the other way, come work for us one day…blah blah… we’re just around the corner and you’ll be on $200K…. blah blah blah… Kind regards your mate Senior Staff CBA. p.s did you and Kate get that bottle of Dom?
Hahahahahahaaaa….at last ASIC got permission from Big four plus other four to go ahead and declare full implementation of recommendations “smoke screen”…..
Hahaha
Dear Colleagues,
In the spirit of the royal commission recommendations, I am thinking about providing more initial disclosures to the client and i’d appreciate some feedback, so as to benchmark against what other advisers are doing.
1. currently (before providing financial services) I provide a FSG, Adviser profile, and a 28 page booklet from money smart (ASIC) called financial advice and you. Along with a hyperlink to ASIC (how to complain section) as well as to AFCA (how to complain section), and a link to the financial advisers register with my personal details
2. In addition to that, I have also crafted a new document explaining what it means to be an independent financial adviser, and how I am [b]not independent[/b]. (it’s only 1 page), plus hyperlink to austlii and reference to the corps act 2001 and relevant section.
3. I am also thinking about providing the research paper (44 pages) for the royal commission written by Professor Sunita Sah from Cornell University Nov 1, 2018, the paper is titled [i]Conflicts of Interest and Disclosure.[/i]
do you think this is enough? i am worried about whether this will be effective as the client’s may not read it (as ken hayne said, disclosure is only effective if the client reads it)
i’m thinking i will also devise (say a 10 question) multiple choice quiz to see if the clients read the 3 initial disclosures. that way i can be certain that i have disclosed fully the inherent conflicts in my advice.
thoughts ?
thanks in advance.
That’s ok. You’re now up to part 2 of stage 1 of the relationship and that’s charging a fee for your work…prior to doing any work. I would suggest you follow my ex dealer group lead and send out three letters (one 10 pages long) requiring client consent in triplicate.
Or they just jump online open an AustralianSuper account, get some frequent flyer points and not even have to comply with Identification requirements.
I’m sorry, but unfortunately your disclosures are not good enough. They need to sign off that they have read and understood all the pages provided before you proceed. Hyperlinks are not good enough, no guarantee client has internet fast enough to open the file, then read it.
You forgot to provide a police report, credit check, tax lodgement reports, 2 referees, and a letter recommendation from a judge or local MP
And don’t forget several testimonials from your mates at the pub as we all really know that is where the best financial advice is received and delivered. :lol::roll:
I only see one deficiency in what you propose. and by god, its a cunning omission (you sly dog).
and that is you have not included the most important disclosure of all. a national police check. proving you are innocent, and not a criminal.
remember regulation FFS2.01 of the asic act. also called the ‘reverse rule’ in financial planning, i.e. a financial planner is presumed guilty UNLESS proven innocent first. this is the ‘reverse’ of what applies to the general population.
gotcha.
BREACH! BREACH! BREACH! CALL COMPLIANCE, CALL THE LAWYERS, BETTER COME UP WITH A REMEDY, QUICK.
Don’t forget to get each page initialed. Better yet, a complete, dated signature on each paragraph.
Just put everyone out of business in the life game! no commissions = no advice = under insurance and no service for clients in the most important area –PROTECTION & CLAIMS….idiots
ASIC to full recommend whatever ANZ CBA tell them to do lol
Life risk commissions being decided upon by those who have NO understanding of how anyone can afford increased premiums with increased cost of advice is a recipe for fooilishness and bad outcomes. Those in charge while living in an ivory tower need to understand some facts. Low wage growth in over 2 decades, rising cost of living, job insecurity and global interest rates rising on the back of a downturn in an economic sense leaves mortgage holders at 190 percent of debt to household income. This pozie scheme of incompetance was the making of foolish economic policies and this now looms large over our economy. So, into this arena goes an adviser seeking to charge a fee for advice for insurance in increasing values as commissions reduce. The result is a lower rate of insurance take up, rising premiums, lower stamp duty and more reliance on an over streched underfunded social security system which will only be at the cost of taxpayers. Politicians who choose to not put the interest of their voter first have failed us all over the last 30 years. So go right ahead. Blow up the insurance industry, allow poor contratcs to continue and keep your collective arrogant heads in the sand. This country is badly run by those who are conflicted and have their snouts in the trough by spinning nonsense to the voter. And we are told to act in the best interest of the consumer?. We have always done so and need proper leadership to steer our industry and nation with vision and not political ideology and stupidity acting as leadership. Be careful consumer groups for what you wish for. You just might get and it will be to late.
This is absolutely insane. Repealing grandfathering of commissions will not improve policy holder’s positions and it certainly dilute the incentive to offer service. Policies may be in place as it may be detrimental to transfer them into alternative products. Business values will reduce and let me assure you that by pushing financial planners to far into the labyrinth, will be detrimental to the community. If both Liberal and Labor believe that their social security costs are high today, watch out for the future as these draconian recommendations being put in place today will have adverse effects on the economy. I am so sick and tired and offended that our goal posts perpetually change because of stupid bolshi regulators and politicians.
As a business, we are already looking to remove ourselves from clients with grandfathered platforms…. this will allow us to discharge all responsibility for the small amount of trails we receive. Is this not a win-win for these clients? I’m sure they would love to not have any financial advice.
But it does for the shareholders of the big guys
I’ve got some sympathy for those advisers with significant trails (especially those that borrowed to buy them before the rules changed), but this argument, often dragged out is simply false. The product issuer will stop the trail and rebate it to the customer. It’s as simple as that.
Why not -pay rises for incompetence and better career paths now that the banks are accountable
I notice ASIC are too corrupt themselves to apply any of the measures of accountability, best interests, product design and intervention or sole purpose to the ISA
Recommendation 2.0 will be interesting, given it is uneconomical to actually provide (and implement) risk insurance advice now, why would anyone consider further reducing the cap? frankly it needs to be “increased” to at least 88/22. Can someone please explain how Joe average will be excited about paying a fee to receive risk (only) advice.
Looking forward to the insurance industry lobbying govt in a few years time for comms to be reintroduced at 240% just like has happened internationally.
Do you recommend level premiums? If a client actually values your “insurance only” advice then you should be dialling back the Comms taking an upfront and the client now basically has stepped premiums on a level structure. My clients will pay $4k+ easily for that advice especially when you project a 10 year saving.
Stop putting words in clients mouths and actually give them all the options you’ll be surprised what they actually do!
actually we have (as have many others) considered your suggestion, however that works only “some” of the time. if you (like us) are receiving phone inquiries every day on ways to reduce premiums, i fail to see how paying a fee and increasing them is a viable option . b ut hey, i only have 36 years experience in this field, what would I know?
Level premiums Ha! Have you seen how much level premiums have increased by lately? Some more than stepped. What a joke and a con.
better cut out intra fund advice seeing it is setup same why as the adviser commissions that you are about to Ban…