X
  • About
  • Advertise
  • Contact
Get the latest news! Subscribe to the ifa bulletin
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Podcast
  • Risk
  • Events
  • Video
  • Promoted Content
  • Webcasts
No Results
View All Results
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Podcast
  • Risk
  • Events
  • Video
  • Promoted Content
  • Webcasts
No Results
View All Results
No Results
View All Results
Home Opinion

When can advisers recommend a switch to an in-house product?

There is a conflict any time a financial adviser recommends an in-house product, but the conflict can be managed.

by Simon Carrodus
August 26, 2019
in Opinion
Reading Time: 4 mins read
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

ASIC has determined that conflicts with in-house products do exist

In its Report 562, ASIC looked at the big five financial service institutions – CBA, Westpac, ANZ, NAB and AMP – and found that 68 per cent of their client’s funds were invested in in-house products. Looking at 200 files where clients switched from external to in-house products, ASIC found that 75 per cent failed to demonstrate compliance with the best interests duty (i.e. the safe harbour). Around 10 per cent of those files contained advice that left the customer significantly worse off.

X

In many cases ASIC found that the client’s original product was perfectly capable of meeting their needs and objectives, and so replacing them was ‘unnecessary’.

It would be naive to think that such conflicts only occur at the big end of town. The same conflict affects many small to medium-sized advice businesses (including those that use managed accounts). We know that ASIC’s managed account project is focusing on a number of issues including fees, suitability and – you guessed it – conflicts!

Can financial advisers still recommend in-house products?

The conflict priority rule is an important element of what ASIC calls the ‘best interests duty and related obligations’. It requires a financial adviser to prioritise the interests of their client above their own interests and the interests of their licensee or corporate group. The royal commission made it clear (if it wasn’t already) that a conflict arises whenever a financial adviser recommends an in-house (or related party) product.

While in-house product recommendations are not prohibited pursuant to the Corporations Act or the FASEA Code of Ethics, advisers need to take appropriate steps to prioritise their clients’ interests above their own. It’s not enough for an adviser to merely disclose the conflict. The adviser must explain why the in-house product is likely to leave the client in a better position and how it is more likely to satisfy the client’s needs and objectives (versus the client’s existing product).

This explanation should be captured and properly documented as part of the advice process. The message from ASIC is clear – if it’s not documented on file, it didn’t happen. In Report 562 and Report 515, ASIC pointed to the fact that often there was nothing on file to demonstrate that the adviser had complied with the best interests duty (and related obligations). So, even if the adviser hadn’t breached the law, there was no evidence that the adviser had complied with the law.

What if an in-house product isn’t appropriate?

An in-house product isn’t going to be appropriate for every client that walks in the door. When this occurs, the adviser has three options:

  • Research other financial products that may be more appropriate for the client;
  • Refer the client to another adviser who can help them; or
  • Politely decline to advise the client.

When should an adviser consider switching a client to an in-house product?

If a client has an existing product, you may consider recommending a switch to a new product (including an in-house product) if it is in the client’s best interests to do so. A good time to consider a switch is if the client’s existing product is inappropriate for them, taking into account their needs and objectives.

However, if the client’s existing product is appropriate for them and capable of meeting their needs and objectives, it will be difficult to justify a switch.

Before you recommend a switch to an in-house product, you should:

  • Properly research your client’s existing product;
  • Conduct a comparative analysis of the existing product v the in-house product. You may consider including a third (external) product that is capable of meeting the client’s needs and objectives. This gives your client a better idea of the options available to them and the pros, cons, risks and costs of each option; and
  • Capture your research on the client file and summarise it in the statement of advice.

Generally, it will be difficult for you to justify a product switch if:

  • The benefits of your in-house product are lower than the client’s existing product; or
  • The costs of your in-house product are higher than the client’s existing product.

The best recommendations are usually easy to explain. If you are struggling to justify or explain your recommendation to switch to an in-house product – stop and reconsider it.


Simon Carrodus, solicitor director, The Fold Legal

Related Posts

Image: Bombora Advice

The age of underinsurance and the consumer gap we cannot ignore

by Niall McConville
November 17, 2025
1

From an industry perspective, it’s a consumer gap that threatens our long-term sustainability if left unchecked. Rising premiums are compounding...

Why we must be optimistic about the barriers to advice

by Neil Rogan
November 10, 2025
0

Financial advice in Australia is often perceived as something people hesitate to engage with, however there is cause for greater...

The rise of model portfolios: Global trends and developments

by Kathleen Gallagher and Sinead Schaffer
November 3, 2025
0

Model portfolios have shifted from niche to mainstream, both in the US and Australia, marking a major change in the...

Comments 13

  1. Anonymous says:
    6 years ago

    When you’re rorting the Intra-Fund “advice” provisions, as a Union Super fund tied sales agent. What a scam. The fact that the FPA is covering this up, proves they have been invaded by Union Super Fund advisers. Totally invaded.

    Reply
  2. ConflictedMuch says:
    6 years ago

    Has anyone from Evans Dixon read up on this!? I think not!

    Reply
  3. ConflictedMuch says:
    6 years ago

    Has anyone from Evans and Dixion read up on this? I think not!

    Reply
  4. Anony Mouse says:
    6 years ago

    This should apply for the union funds and all industry funds equally as well as any other provider. The fact that union funds are actually quite expensive as well as generally misleading in a range of important consumer facing information areas is concerning. The fact that ASIC allow this farce to continue is nigh on corrupt.

    Reply
  5. Annon says:
    6 years ago

    FASEA Standard 3 states
    An adviser can recommend financial products offered by their employer or principal, but cannot
    obtain a personal benefit by way of remuneration from those products a client purchases. That is
    because obtaining a personal benefit from a client may conflict with an adviser’s duty to act in a
    client’s best interests.

    Reply
  6. Scratching my head says:
    6 years ago

    Hahahahahaha I love that the article has an ad for Macquarie Managed Accounts, assume a Macquarie adviser can’t recommend easily but a non Macquarie adviser can ? Makes no sense to bar one group of advisers from using a product from any provider that other advisers can legitimately use trouble free. The height of ridiculous all of this.

    Reply
  7. Anonymous says:
    6 years ago

    Why shouldn’t it be a case of ASIC proving guilt and that an Adviser breached a law, rather than an Adviser proving innocence when it comes to evidence of complying with the law?

    Reply
  8. Anonymous says:
    6 years ago

    ASIC ignoring Industry Funds is illegal then?

    Reply
  9. BID says:
    6 years ago

    When did the Best Interest Duty become Safe Harbour?? It’s troubling the differences aren’t known.

    Reply
  10. Christian says:
    6 years ago

    Honestly we need to abolish the General Advice provisions. Industry funds and product makers have been abusing the protections while calling themselves Advisers. It’s either in their best interest or you are a sales person.

    Reply
  11. anon says:
    6 years ago

    If ASIC ruled all our purchases solely by the rules of ‘cheaper’ and ‘meets the need’ then we’d all be driving mini mokes.

    Reply
  12. Rob Coyte says:
    6 years ago

    Excellent article on how conflicts of interest need to be managed. There is so much hyperbole in this area including for those who claim they provide non conflicted advice which by definition cannot exist.

    Reply
  13. Anonymous says:
    6 years ago

    FASEA Standard 3 will now prohibit this being permitted, regardless of the justifications that an adviser can provide. You simply can’t get around this standard safely.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

VIEW ALL
Promoted Content

Private Credit in Transition: Governance, Growth, and the Road Ahead

Private credit is reshaping commercial real estate finance. Success now depends on collaboration, discipline, and strong governance across the market.

by Zagga
October 29, 2025
Promoted Content

Boring can be brilliant: why steady investing builds lasting wealth

Excitement sells stories, not stability. For long-term wealth, consistency and compounding matter most — proving that sometimes boring is the...

by Zagga
September 30, 2025
Promoted Content

Helping clients build wealth? Boring often works best.

Excitement drives headlines, but steady returns build wealth. Real estate private credit delivers predictable performance, even through volatility.

by Zagga
September 26, 2025
Promoted Content

Navigating Cardano Staking Rewards and Investment Risks for Australian Investors

Australian investors increasingly view Cardano (ADA) as a compelling cryptocurrency investment opportunity, particularly through staking mechanisms that generate passive income....

by Underfive
September 4, 2025

Join our newsletter

View our privacy policy, collection notice and terms and conditions to understand how we use your personal information.

Poll

This poll has closed

Do you have clients that would be impacted by the proposed Division 296 $3 million super tax?
Vote
www.ifa.com.au is a digital platform that offers daily online news, analysis, reports, and business strategy content that is specifically designed to address the issues and industry developments that are most relevant to the evolving financial planning industry in Australia. The platform is dedicated to serving advisers and is created with their needs and interests as the primary focus.

Subscribe to our newsletter

View our privacy policy, collection notice and terms and conditions to understand how we use your personal information.

About IFA

  • About
  • Advertise
  • Contact
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Collection Notice
  • Privacy Policy

Popular Topics

  • News
  • Risk
  • Opinion
  • Podcast
  • Promoted Content
  • Video
  • Profiles
  • Events

© 2025 All Rights Reserved. All content published on this site is the property of Prime Creative Media. Unauthorised reproduction is prohibited

No Results
View All Results
NEWSLETTER
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Podcast
  • Risk
  • Events
  • Video
  • Promoted Content
  • Webcasts
  • About
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us

© 2025 All Rights Reserved. All content published on this site is the property of Prime Creative Media. Unauthorised reproduction is prohibited