In its official submission to the Senate inquiry into the performance of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, CBA called for a number of reforms that would aid consumer confidence in the financial advice sector and enhance barriers to entry.
“Notwithstanding the positive impact that the FOFA reforms are having on the financial planning industry, CFP advocates that consideration should be given to ensuring that those licensed to give financial advice are of good character,” the submission states.
Specifically, the submission backs ASIC’s suggestions to ensure “requirements for entry into the industry and becoming licensed to provide financial advice are appropriate” as well as supporting the call for ASIC to maintain a register of financial planners.
The bank also called for “the introduction in Australia of a financial planner passport scheme similar to the one operating in the United States”.
The passport scheme should be “administered by ASIC and funded by industry” the submission states.
Joe,I like your work , Arthur ,listen to Joe ,Why bother with a passport for the adviser, when its the management back up the tree that receive bonuses on volume of in house product SOLD ..in the name of advice! Cmon Arthur the past government had blinkers on ,you havent! You dont need a senate enquiry simply call vertical integration for what it is ..a product flog ,its not advice. And call independent advice for what it is .And then let consumers make an informed choice.
Its not rocket science Arthur.
Nobody jumps ship faster than managers and executive managers. I think its further up the ladder people that need to be closely monitored. CFP has had more management changes tha we can imagine. In fact in the Senate Inquiry into CFP they will have a hard time tracking down all the dodgy managers that have quickly moved on.
I think the last thing Aust FPs should be doing is to look to the USA for guidance. In my opinion, there are 5 issues that should be examined:
1. No provider of financial advice should be employed, engaged, contracted etc by a product provider.
2. The only definite outcome of the “fee for service” model is that more & more people will not take up financial advice due to costs. The previous system worked PROVIDED that my point 1 above was in play.
3. Review compensation processes in their entirety. This includes the operations & decision making process of FOS as well PI Ins (inc ASIC’s RG126).
4. Remove AFSL from the Corps Act into its own legislation. That same Act to also contain ACL provisions.
5. Merge AFSL & ACL into 1 licence with only those conditions that would apply to the licensee. Also, simplify licence conditions & terminology.
CBA pretending to be the “white knight” of the industry? A joke. Tell your clients about enforced undertakings and why they are put in place.
Watch this space. Product manufactures will be ditching advisers altogether once they think they have direct distribution nailed.
More red tape – another job for ASIC to do and for us to pay for.
Why not go lower cost & higher tech and just have a microchip implanted in all financial planners to track us for life.
I’ll sign up to that after the lawyers, doctors, engineers & other professionals agree to that.
Expand on Passport Scheme.
Google doesn’t tell me anything.
funny CBA starts this type of talk a minute after the storm financial crisis, are they the self-proclaimed good guys now??
Definition for Macquarie Dictionary to consider: –
Passport scheme – read – passing the buck.
No pun intended!
Agree with previous comments, and its ironical that CBA should come up with this now, as it has not learnt from its past. Not only the recent scandal, which was an appalling misuse of trust, but the undertaking which was placed on it during the early 2000’s… Nice to have a good belly laugh at the end of another week in the real world.
Has the CBA overlooked that all Advisers are listed on a publicly accessable web site & are required to provide their AR number in an FSG & all correspondence.
Isn’t there enough beauracracy without another layer? Or are CBA endeavouring to disguise some errors which appear at the Manufacturer area.
As a shareholder, I would be horrified to learn that a company in which I am a shareholder is inviting further Government intervention & costs which ultimately effect my dividends.
Just what we need, more regulation!
Are not CBA, as an AFSL, already required to check that their advisors meet ASIC educational standards and make reasonable character checks before issuing an Authorised Representative certificate?
As a practitioner I see no consumer or industry benefit in overlaying more compliance obligations. Perhaps as an industry really should be spending our time considering how we can improve meaningful service to our clients.
Industry integrity advocates now? Fix your own backyard first CBA, too little too late. Oh yes, the planning scandal was over 5 years ago according to Ian Narev, and now everything is all squeaky clean…
ASIC can’t regulate what it does now so how would they regulate this. I have been a planner for over 26 years and my understanding was that the ASIC Authorised Representative number was going to be used to track the movements of planners from licensee to licensee, however I have noticed that I some cases individuals have ended up with multiple ASIC numbers. Typical CBA approach to add another layer of red tape. What a joke.