Speaking at the SMSF Association National Conference 2021, the standards authority’s chief executive, Stephen Glenfield, said it was “fair” to suggest Treasury would look to amend the code taking into account industry feedback that the current wording of Standard 3 was unworkable.
Mr Glenfield said a change to the wording of the code was “consistent with the way the Corporations Act has been structured around this”.
“It required FASEA to put in place standards, but within the act it says those standards are to be assessed regularly,” he said.
“To me the standards have had their beginning period, we’re watching them bed down and gathering information on can they be made better.
“As part of the handover to Treasury when the legislation goes through, they will get a full briefing of what stakeholders are looking to change. The views [will be] summarised in a way that they can put into their legislative process going forward.”
The comments come following the news late last year that the government would discontinue FASEA as a standalone body and roll its standards setting powers into Treasury, with other administrative aspects including code monitoring and exam management to be handed to ASIC’s Financial Services and Credit Panel.
The authority had also released new guidelines around the practical application of the code of ethics late last year for consultation.
Mr Glenfield said FASEA had received “a range of responses” calling for the wording of the “controversial” Standard 3 to be altered.
“We received submissions to retain the standard as it is, to adapt the wording of the standard to give it better legal application, to revert to the original application of the standard or to change the standard to provide a ‘disclose and manage’ approach to conflicts,” he said.
“There are a range of views expressed that we need to take account of before making decisions. FASEA will liaise with Treasury to ensure they are across the submissions, which will guide the future of the code and the guidelines.”
Is IFA going bust? An article like this would generally provoke vastly more than 4 comments. I personally commented on Friday morning, but it hasn’t appeared.
Its very simple ladies and gentleman, we need a union
FSU and AIOFP?
Would have been nice of the author to remind us all of what the controversial wording was, given that the whole article was about that!
“To me the standards have had their beginning period, we’re watching them bed down and gathering information on can they be made better.
Is Stephen Glenfield a professional? Well, a professional at what he does that is for sure.
Stephen, if FASEA standards are your best effort with the skills you possess…. who made you the expert? WOW.
Control of our profession standards is going from one bunch of bureaucrats without a clue to another bunch of bureaucrats without a clue. Until financial planning standards are overseen by a panel of practicing, experienced practitioners (like every other profession) we will continue to live with intolerable uncertainty, dwindling numbers, spiraling costs and consumers will be the ultimate losers.
More likely from one bunch of bureaucrats mislead to another bunch of bureaucrats that hate planners with a vengeance. Some AMP guys sold them a 3% entry fee super fund with a 3% ongoing fee and 20 years ago they added $10,000 and today they’ve got $10,100.
Seriously guys, gals & others, if you are doing your job right then FASEA, except for Std3 which should be changed, is not that big an issue. We are paying the price now for letting the banks own advice, this is at least partly on ourselves since that which you tolerate you endorse
Corruption – yes everywhere including our industry, putting clients interest first? – actually quite easy. Just tell the truth, believe in your service offer and do the right thing by the client. Try asking this simple question – would you pay full fare for your own services? Most wouldn’t and there is the problem.
What do we need to do from here:
1. document everything properly;
2. do the studies; and
3. learn to say no when you should say no.
Advisers are already paid well but it is about to get much better for those left standing in 2 years.
Gilligan, you should have stayed on the island. Wait umtil you are in front of the AFCA and getting FUBAR’D and then remember this comment you idiot!.
Perhaps they should consult with some more unemployed Academics.
As someone who worked in the finance sector for 11 months but has significant research skills I am well positioned to consult and guide FASEA/Treasury. I Unfortunately I lost my job due to Youtube ( please stop making Youtube video’s as I’m being written out and replaced by robots) so I am happy to accept bribes, I mean be compensated for any ramblings, I mean research.
So will treasury use the “consumer” submissions ASIC paid for , or can these be discarded ?
Pleasing to FINALLY see FASEA concede this Code was unworkable but how long it took them to do that, shows how stubborn they’ve been.
I’m still seething though that advisers aren’t allowed to receive rightful ‘referral’ and ‘activation’ payments for the considerable amount of work we (used to) do helping our insurance clients take up AIA’s Vitality health and wellness program and ‘AIA Health Insurance’ offerings that significantly reduced the cost of both their life insurance AND health insurance with equal or better products – that no other insurer can currently provide.
Where is the client not being better served here and how is the adviser not serving the best interests of his clients by recommending it? Furthermore and more importantly, how is an adviser conflicted in anyway with all those clear benefits to the client?
These ridiculous standards have caused me to stop doing all that work for my clients now which in turn, has negatively impacted me as well as my clients and AIA Australia subsequently causing the opposite affect to what FASEA ‘say’ they wanted for consumers. I was a massive advocate of this combined life and health insurance solution for my clients…but not now. Not since the only person NOT benefitting from all that extra work was me, the adviser!
FARSEA couldn’t run a chook raffle with out breaking their own Standards & Values.
As for Ethics, ASIC directly engage 2 academics with a $10K bribe for a Pay for Comment research report to say exactly what ASIC wanted Standard 3 to be.
The academics are highly conflicted in relationship to FARSEA and related parties.
ASIC paying for comments is total corruption.
[b]And these so called ETHICS gods are totally conflicted, totally corrupt, complete Regulatory Capture Corruption of HATING ADVISERS. [/b][b][/b]
And now the truth is coming out and the DISGUSTING STENCH OF HYPOCRISY laid to bare.
FARSEAcal in every way.
Yes, this hypocrisy and double standard reeks with the stench of left wing politics, and their “politically correct” and self serving “power grab” driven agendas – our version of “the deep state/swamp” in play, if you will
Given the lack of understanding of financial planning with ASIC who constantly deals with advisers, it might be that we will look back after Treasury has done its bit and say that FASEA wasn’t so bad. That would be moderately stomach turning.
Highly likely Treasury & ASIC will do Advisers ZERO favours !!!!
As per Treasury pushing Admin platforms to implement 2nd layer AFSL FDS Optin process pre legislation passing.