On Monday, 28 February, ASIC confirmed it is seeking feedback on the newly-established Financial Services and Credit Panel (FSCP) and its role, including when to convene a sitting panel and publicising decisions of sitting panels.
Earlier this month, the Morrison government announced 31 part-time members on the FSCP in support of the recently passed Better Advice Bill – which sees that the FSCP is established within ASIC as the single disciplinary body for financial advisers – and sees the regulator “responsible for convening individual panels to consider disciplinary matters”.
The Association of Independently Owned Financial Professionals (AIOFP) executive director Peter Johnston took aim at the FSCP shortly after its formation.
“The Financial Services & Credit Panel [FSCP] announcement by [financial services minister Jane Hume] is confusing to say the least,” Mr Johnston said.
“How can you have a panel supposedly representing the advice industry containing only two politically-damaged hybrid associations and an institutionally dominated one with minimal adviser member content?
The regulator said on Monday: “ASIC encourages comments from industry and other interested stakeholders on its proposed approach to setting principles and processes relating to the FSCP.”
Feedback can be submitted now and closes at 5pm on Monday, 28 March.
[quote=You can’t be serious?]“ASIC seeks feedback”…
Have they ever acted on any feedback from anyone about anything ever?[/quote]
only when it fits the report they wrote before seeking the feedback
Just another Government body, where in 3 years time I’ll be paying another levy and another annual registration form to fill out. The make up of the panel is disappointing and a lost opportunity for real self regulation. Self regulation that any profession has. What faith would consumer have towards this panel. Why would I adhere to any determinations as an Adviser. My peers are not sitting on this panel. I don’t consider Head of Sales at XYZ Bank or a Distribution Head for a Fund Manager to be my peer. I don’t consider a compliance at a licensee either to be my peer. Yes there is the odd token person but overall another example of a lack of consultation.
Do some of the senior ASIC employees have their own advisers/financial planners? If so some of these people should be on the panel together with some high quality retired advisers.
Worth remembering lease note there are only 2 panel members drawn for each case – clearly 31 that would be a debacle! The panel needs 31 that can be drawn from as they cover many other areas – not just financial planning. It would be good to know what % of issues will actually are expected to cover financial planning and whether the number of financial planning members on the panel reflect this. I expect there will also be issues arise where a panel member cannot act due to conflict, time pressure etc – so that is another reason why the number of people that can be drawn from appears so large
“ASIC seeks feedback”…
Have they ever acted on any feedback from anyone about anything ever?
Nope… take it from one that knows!
They have actually. They have acted on feedback from dodgy academics and activists who they paid (with taxpayers money) to write submissions which aligned with ASIC’s biased preconceived views. It’s a standard ASIC technique to give the appearance of consultation while actually ignoring the majority of stakeholders.
[quote=KC]Why…..31 person panel….doomed from the outset!![/quote
So they can defer liability for stupid actions. I can envisage them now with their arms crossed and the index fingers of their hands surreptitiously pointing to the person one either side .
Why…..31 person panel….doomed from the outset!!
Too many cooks…