Despite some criticism about the 31-member panel – which sees the FSCP established within ASIC as the single disciplinary body for financial advisers – the Financial Planning Association of Australia head Sarah Abood said it “makes a lot of sense” on the latest episode of the ifa Show.
“We’ve seen the panel members, that list released recently, and I think what I like about that is there are representatives across that panel from the broad sectors of the industry,” Ms Abood said.
“I think there’s maybe been a bit of misunderstanding that the reason that panel is so broad is so that we can make sure that people who understand the particular issue are the ones that are reviewing it.
“So, we’re not going to see a situation where someone from a timeshare apartment background is going to be sitting in judgement on a comprehensive advice financial adviser. Pretty confident that’s not going to happen, but I think it’s great news that we have that, and I certainly see some potential positives coming from that.”
Last week, ASIC announced it was seeking feedback on the FSCP and its role, including when to convene a sitting panel and publicising decisions of sitting panels.
Feedback can be submitted now and closes at 5pm on Monday, 28 March.
Listen to the full episode with Ms Abood here.
A sign of any profession is your “peers” over seeing your behavior. The meaning of PEER is one that is of equal standing with another. A Royal Commission failure. It’s called Board hoping. You get on one board and before you know it you’re the CEO of the FPA. These aren’t my peers and I still don’t see how a Sales Rep from Bennelong Funds Management can be a suitable candidate. A Person working at Sentry in Compliance is not my peer either.
SoA’s and Processes are now written based on PI Insurance requirements, AFCA findings, Corporations Laws, ASIC Regulatory Guides, Privacy Laws and the Licensee interpretations of the above. Now we’ve got yet another body in there as well. Another layer of Government where the cost will be passed onto Advisers in year 3.
No problem understanding that this Panel needs Advice, Insurance, Stockbroking, Credit and Time Share experts.
That’s fine.
Except there are at least two on the Panel, seemingly representing Advice or the “Wealth Industry”, who have never been on the ASIC Register as Advisers. Therefore no basis for saying they are experts in that field.
If ASIC excluded from its supervisory panels those without practitioner experience then they wouldn’t have many staff at all.
The biggest misunderstanding about the “single disciplinary body” is how one of many disciplinary bodies could possibly be called [b]single[/b].
Hume has failed to deliver the single disciplinary body as recommended by Hayne. Simply calling it a “Single Disciplinary Body” does not make it one.
Exactly, its simply ANOTHER Disciplinary Body, and another set up Adviser Rego Fees to pay and another dam set of paper work to fill out annually.
Hume, just because you believe your own rubbish, ADVISER DO NOT believe you.