FASEA explains new pathways
FASEA has released the Relevant Providers Degrees, Qualifications and Courses Standard 2019 Legislative Instrument (the 2019 determination) for consultation.
This determination includes an updated list of bachelor degrees, graduate diplomas and bridging courses the standards body has approved since the previous decision in 2018, along with RPL credits for relevant professional designations.
This determination will repeal and remake the Corporations (Relevant Providers Degrees, Qualifications and Courses Standard) Determination 2018 (the 2018 determination).
Commenting on the news, FASEA CEO Stephen Glenfield said: "The draft 2019 determination documents the significant body of course and other accreditations approved by FASEA throughout 2019 and provides recognition of study undertaken by advisers."
He continued: "FASEA welcomes stakeholder feedback as we continue to update FASEA’s approved list for the education standard, and all feedback will be carefully reviewed prior to making of the legislative instrument and release of the explanatory statement."
You can read the determination and explanatory statement here.
ASIC finds advice issues in super
In releasing the new report, REP 639: Financial advice by superannuation funds, ASIC noted the quality of personal advice provided by super funds was “generally appropriate”.
However, looking deeper into the regulator’s research (which examined 11 retail funds, 10 industry funds, two corporate funds and two public sector funds), just under half (49%) of the advice surveyed demonstrated full compliance with the best interests duty and related obligations.
A further 36% didn’t demonstrate full compliance, but there was no evidence that this led to a risk of affected clients suffering financial or non-financial detriment. Another 15%, of the advice, however, was both non-compliant and indicative of a risk for financial or non-financial detriment to clients.
ASIC said the primary reasons why non-compliant advice wasn’t adhering to the best interests duty were that the provider “failed to identify the subject matter of the advice and the member’s objectives, financial situation and needs” and/or the provider “failed to conduct a reasonable investigation into financial products and base all judgements on the member’s relevant circumstances.”
Former Infocus adviser banned
Staying on ASIC, the regulator also banned Nina Williams from providing financial services for one year.
Williams had applied to be an Infocus authorised representative and did not disclose at the time that she had been charged with fraud and stealing under the Queensland Criminal Code.
“By failing to disclose this information to Infocus and the professional indemnity insurer,” ASIC explained, “Ms Williams prevented her licensee from making a fully informed decision about her suitability as an authorised representative.
“Furthermore, her failure to disclose this information could have resulted in the avoidance of the insurance contract by the insurer, which means her clients may not have received compensation in the event of a claim or a dispute.”
The opinions expressed in this content are those of the author shown, and do not necessarily represent those of No More Practice Education Pty Ltd or its related entities. All content is intended for a professional financial adviser audience only and does not constitute financial advice. To view our full terms and conditions, click here.
19 December, 2019
19 December, 2019
When navigating the new advice landscape, learning to say no will be just as important as what you agree to.
17 December, 2019
In today's ReVue, we examine: