The guide includes case study examples of which their purpose is to aid understanding of the requirements of the code, FASEA said in a statement.
The standards body said the code is a living document and subject to change, as required, and is principles-based and is intended to apply to a wide range of situations.
However, FASEA noted that all of the formal obligations lie in the language of the code, not the guidance document, which is illustrative rather than conclusive in its guidance.
“As with all professions, advisers are ultimately responsible for exercising judgement in the application of the code,” FASEA said.
FASEA said it will host a series of consultation briefing sessions with a number of educational, professional, consumer and industry stakeholders.
It said the purpose of the sessions is to provide opportunity for consultation on the practical elements of the code, and to communicate and explain the integrated nature of the code.
Advisers will be required to comply with the code, comprising five values 12 standards, from 1 January 2020.
FASEA are as useful as flatulence in an elevator and no where near as funny
[quote=Squeaky_1]Why does the article state all inforce by 1st Jan 2020? It has been moved back to 1st Jan 2021 last time I looked![/quote][quote=Squeaky_1]Why does the article state all inforce by 1st Jan 2020? It has been moved back to 1st Jan 2021 last time I looked![/quote]
That’s the exam that got pushed out mate, not the new code.
[quote=Anonymous]That’s not what that says at all? It’s saying if your business is built around “selling” insurance products or you have an in-house offering and you’re just pushing only then you have a problem.
And that is why AMP is changing into a one stop shop – just like the Industry Funds. They all have product to sell and sell it they will – and with Intra Fund advice life will be better for AMP – IF they can do it?[/quote][quote=Anonymous]That’s not what that says at all? It’s saying if your business is built around “selling” insurance products or you have an in-house offering and you’re just pushing only then you have a problem.
And that is why AMP is changing into a one stop shop – just like the Industry Funds. They all have product to sell and sell it they will – and with Intra Fund advice life will be better for AMP – IF they can do it?[/quote]
Exactly! They’re a “product provider” what don’t you old planners get about that?
We’re meant to be the finance specialist championing the clients. Let the providers bring out trash products and make a mess of themselves just DON’T advise on them.
Why are all the planners thinking they’re the product provider?
[quote=Say What]page 17
You will breach standard 3 where the dominant purpose of providing advice to clients is to derive profits
from selling those clients ancillary products or services from which you personally benefit.
haha if you make a profit looks like everyone is working for free haha this has to be a joke[/quote][quote=Say What]page 17
You will breach standard 3 where the dominant purpose of providing advice to clients is to derive profits
from selling those clients ancillary products or services from which you personally benefit.
haha if you make a profit looks like everyone is working for free haha this has to be a joke[/quote]
so now the financial planner is ultimately responsible for everything, even things that are not in our control like making sure licensee approved soa content is tailored to the client so they understand our advice and is not too complex.
so you want us to fight with the licensee as well about what they want in their SoA?. there are lots of expectations on advisers on what we are required to do but very little understanding of the afsl regime we work under.
Why does the article state all inforce by 1st Jan 2020? It has been moved back to 1st Jan 2021 last time I looked!
It’s a living document, subject to change?. It’s been referred to our lawyers, as we have no faith in our professional association to challenge what is coming out of FASEA. Our small firm cannot afford to deal with “a living document , We need certainty under law to operate, not At the Whim of people sitting on a KWANGO who want to make it up as they go.
That’s not what that says at all? It’s saying if your business is built around “selling” insurance products or you have an in-house offering and you’re just pushing only then you have a problem.
And that is why AMP is changing into a one stop shop – just like the Industry Funds. They all have product to sell and sell it they will – and with Intra Fund advice life will be better for AMP – IF they can do it?
[quote=Say What]page 17
You will breach standard 3 where the dominant purpose of providing advice to clients is to derive profits
from selling those clients ancillary products or services from which you personally benefit.
haha if you make a profit looks like everyone is working for free haha this has to be a joke[/quote][quote=Say What]page 17
You will breach standard 3 where the dominant purpose of providing advice to clients is to derive profits
from selling those clients ancillary products or services from which you personally benefit.
haha if you make a profit looks like everyone is working for free haha this has to be a joke[/quote]
That’s not what that says at all? It’s saying if your business is built around “selling” insurance products or you have an in-house offering and you’re just pushing only then you have a problem.
As a financial adviser you should be discussing strategic planning with clients.
This conflict also goes to memberships of industry associations. FPA Directors, FPA members, FPA chapter chairs….You’re all getting CPD, subsidized annual conferences and membership fees all partly paid by firms owned by a product manufacturer and or their related entities….. and so if you yourself use any of those financial products…. then clearly you now also have a separate conflict of interest. The FPA can’t put on a free webinar that’s been subsisdised by say IOOF and you then use an IOOF product…that’s a conflict. In the past that could be managed, disclosed or avoided it’s conflicts full stop.
This is a freaking joke. What about multi-disciplinary practices?
Where to start with how impractical and ridiculous this document actually is.
i like the comment “it is a living document and may change…” so ethics are now changeable? The problem with ethics is that what you see as OK I might not and vice versa. it is grey at the edges. upbringing and experiences form our moral compass which has input into our ethics. An exam or code cannot cater to everyone’s ethics except the big bit in the middle – like theft etc. just who decides what is or is not ethical behaviour and how on earth is it managed? An exam is a tick-the-box and utterly useless in intelligent circles. And we as advisers, are intelligent. FASEA seems dumb by comparison. time to leave this over-regulated advice industry… heavy handed compliance and certain political and other’s idealogy has driven me out. sad
page 17
You will breach standard 3 where the dominant purpose of providing advice to clients is to derive profits
from selling those clients ancillary products or services from which you personally benefit.
haha if you make a profit looks like everyone is working for free haha this has to be a joke
The banks who fund FASEA have read the fine print and decided there may be problems with Ethics and conflict for their pared down product-flogging “salried “NEW advisers, post RC. When you pay the piper, you choose the music.
Sorry, I meant page 17
There is ten weeks to go until this is in-force and they are about to commence ‘consultation briefing sessions’. Is this an episode of Rob Sitch’s Utopia? Buried at the bottom of page 10, is a motherhood statement which appears to ban all commissions and asset-based fees. WTF is going on? FASEA is taking a wrecking ball to our profession. What a disaster.