Unveiling its corporate plan for 2021-2024, ASIC said it would continue to deter poor behaviour and misconduct through its “why not litigate?” discipline, despite a defeat in the now-infamous wagyu and shiraz responsible lending case, and use its regulatory tools to drive cultural change across Australian financial services.
“Our work is vital to ensuring that Australians have confidence in the financial system, and that the system has the resilience to endure and recover from the challenges of the pandemic,” said ASIC chair James Shipton.
“We are striving for greater fairness by working with regulated entities, particularly banks, insurers and managed investment scheme operators, in relation to the treatment of customers.”
ASIC also warned that it was returning to its work on the recommendations of the royal commission in preparation for “important future reforms”, with case studies and referrals from the RC back at the top of its to-do list.
“We have resumed many of our workstreams that were temporarily disrupted by the pandemic, including our work to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking Superannuation and Financial Services Industry,” Mr Shipton said.
“We will continually assess and prioritise our focus areas as threats and harms evolve across our regulated sectors. We will also continue to engage constructively with the regulated population, other regulators, governments and consumers to help maintain the proper functioning of the financial system.”
ASIC will also use a host of new tools, including its product intervention power, to intervene in cases where there is “significant consumer detriment”, and take high-deterrence-based enforcement action that carries new or higher penalties to drive good outcomes for consumers and investors.
Three questions for ASIC.
How many members being charged a fee for Intra Fund Advice does it take to pay the costs of one Financial Planner employed by the Product Manufacturer?
How many members does that same employed Financial Planner provide “Advice” to in a one year period?
What is the definition of Fee for No Service?
ASIC and AFCA are destroying the advice industry. There will not be enough planners left to provide advice and the only medium will be direct no advice providers of product that have tended to cause the biggest losses. Mayfair is one direct to consumer example the regulators create by causing the price of advice to rise beyond a price most people can afford for simple transactions.
Yep sounds like the normal ASIC plan for the last 20 years.
Let’s load up the BS REGS dump truck and DUMP, DUMP, DUMP A crap load more BS REGS onto the Financial Advisers.
Canberra Bubbles morons with zero real world understanding, the one trick pony of MORE BS REGS.
ASIC you have no freaking idea about helping clients / consumers get independent & affordable Advice.
It’s interesting to compare ASICs gutless inaction towards irresponsible lending compared to the significant over reaction to financial plannung following the RC.
Irresponsible lenders have basically got away pretty much scot-free compared to what financial planners have had to endure yet most would agree that the RC highlighted conduct which was as bad if not worse by lenders. Where is their FASEA, extra education requirements, unjustified shut down of licensees, removal of commissions/conflicts etc?
Talk about double standards! Obviously Asic is more concerned about upsetting the debt fuelled ponzi scheme than improving client putcomes. ASIC has effectively green-lit banks to return to irresponsible sub-prime mortgage lending.
Agreed. But it’s really just all about going after to soft targets to get easy wins. The irony is, this approach may look good in the papers but will ultimately prove the least effective to illicit change.
The first statement in this article clearly shows how ASIC is trying to act outside of its responsibilities.
It’s role is a regular of the legislation which has been passed through the Federal Parliament. It is not up to ASIC to be preparing the legislation which can only be done via an act of parliament. Jane Hujme has already stated that much of the proposed legislation to be considered in regard to the RC won;t come before parliament until at least the end of this year. Is ASIC again trying to get regulations in place ahead of the legisaltion?
There is also no where in this article where Shipton mentions about working cooperatively with the financial services industry, including advisers, to get the best outcomes for consumers. The whole thrust from Shipton and Co is all combatative and aggressive. May be he needs to go back to Hong Kong where this stance might be acceptable under a Communist Regime. I have no faith in any just and fair outcome for advisers from ASIC with this approach.