The new guidance outlines activities where influencers may contravene the law if they are unaware of their legal requirements, considerations they should take, and also guidance for licensees who are engaging with influencers.
“The way investors access information is changing. It is crucial that influencers who discuss financial products and services online comply with the financial services laws. If they don’t, they risk substantial penalties and put investors at risk,” ASIC commissioner Cathie Armour said.
“ASIC monitors select online financial discussion by influencers who feature or promote financial products for misleading or deceptive representations or unlicensed advice or dealing.
“If we see harm occurring, we will take action to enforce the law.”
It comes after a survey conducted by ASIC last week found that 33 per cent of 18 to 21-year-olds follow at least one financial influencer on social media, while 64 per cent of young people said their financial behaviour has changed as a result of following an influencer.
Late last year, the chief commercial officer of advice tech provider Midwinter, Steve Davison called for “a fairer-level playing field” for advisers in competition with finfluencers.
“To be frank, if we look at various surveys, the biggest go-to for advice is family and friends who will have a whole bunch of biases and experiences that won’t always be good or relevant to the person asking the question,” Mr Davison said during an episode of the ifa Show.
“It feels like advisers have one hand tied behind their back… I think it’s bigger than just the regulators.
Just weeks earlier, financial services minister Jane Hume slammed an ASIC review into finfluencers as the equivalent to creating a nanny state.
Who cares? Finfluencers aren’t my competition and teh more people who get burned by them, the more attractive real advice will look.
Perhaps real estate agents need to a good Royal Commission
I went to an auction over the weekend and the agent brazenly told the crowd that mortgage rates are at all-time lows. Imagine the outcry if an adviser gave such blatant misinformation.
“If we see harm occurring, we will take action to enforce the law.”
So, Financial Planners must comply with the lay and met Best Interest Duty – failing to do so means the advice to the client might be worse off – and we know that’s not good – seem to hear it every time a Financial Planner is banned.
So logically if Finfluencers are not meeting BID – the advice is not in the clients best interest and therefore could be causing harm to the retail punters.
Or could it be that ASIC has been running an agenda against Financial Planners?
ASIC have there hands full sending Advisers to gaol, over spelling mistakes in Fee Disclosure Statements.
Asic should just ban them. Surely prevention is better than cure.
Take a good hard look at what happened to you at the SA election Libs. I realise they are different issues but we are coming for you with baseball bats in May. I was a rusted on Liberal voter, never again.
So what ASIC are saying is that finfluencers can say whatever they want, but as long as at some point they say “this is not personal advice and may not suit you” then all is OK. The same as the shoeless one can have people ‘look over his shoulder’ (with what he does with 1% of his wealth) but this is not seen as providing financial advice.
Will ASIC be guaranteeing that none of the fees paid by licensed advisers ever go towards prosecuting a finfluencer in the future?
ASIC couldn’t see harm happening if it hit them in the face.
“If we see harm occurring, we will take action to enforce the law.”
So it appears all OK to operate and provide advice without a license – just don’t cause harm. OK, so please explain why someone would bother being licensed?
But if you are licensed, and fail to cross an “i” or dot a “t” on any of the hundreds of pages of documentation you are forced to inflict on your clients which they will never read, ASIC will viciously persecute you with the considerable power the government has bestowed upon them. Even if there was no client harm whatsoever.
Our current regulatory system seems to have been inspired by the novels “1984” and “Catch 22”. It encapsulates the most ludicrous elements of both.
Hume’s advocacy for a hands off approach to dodgy “finfluencers” and “roboadvice”, while drowning professional licensed advisers in a tsunami of bureaucratic regulations, shows she is not even fit to be a member of the Liberal Party let alone Financial Services Minister. Her gross incompetence makes even Kelly O’Dwyer look good by comparison.
Hume has got to go. If it means the whole LNP govt goes with her, then so be it. It would be impossible for the ALP to be worse. if Stephen Jones makes good on even half his promises, an ALP govt would be much better for financial advice professionals.
Next step stop industry funds from blocking external financial advisers from serving clients
ASIC addresses finfluencers: ‘If we see harm occurring, we will take action’ – like they did all those YEARS AGO with DIXON ADVISORY or STORM FINANCIAL etc etc. And HUME, well she has no idea (like the rest of her party).