Regulation is top future risk for financial services
The threat of regulatory change has outranked cybercrime as the biggest risk to the financial services industry, according to a recent survey.
January 21, 2014 at 04:14 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The threat of regulatory change has outranked cybercrime as the biggest risk to the financial services industry, according to a recent survey. The Allianz Risk Barometer shows that a raft of post-Global Financial Crisis changes in Australia, including the Future of Financial Advice (FOFA) reforms, saw regulation move to first place on the risk scale for financial services.
Although it supports the principles of FOFA, the government has stated that it believes the previous government's reforms went too far, creating unnecessary complexity, imposing burdens on industry and reducing the availability and increasing the cost of advice to consumers.
The government's previously announced amendments include:
- Removing the 'opt-in' requirement: Removing the requirement for advisers to request their clients renew their advice agreements every two years if clients are paying ongoing fees.
- Amending the annual fee disclosure requirement: Removing the requirement for advisers to provide annual fee disclosure statements to clients who entered into a fee arrangement before 1 July 2013.
- Removing the catch-all provision from the 'best interests duty': Removing the requirement in section 961B(2)(g) of the Corporations Act 2001 for advisers to take any step that, at the time that advice is provided, would be regarded as being in the best interest of the client.
- Explicitly allow scaled advice: Amending the best interest duty to explicitly allow for the provision of scaled advice.
- Exempting general advice from conflicted remuneration: Exempting benefits relating to the provision of general advice from the ban on conflicted remuneration.
- Introduce a casual link into the execution-only exemption: Introduce a casual link into the exemption so that benefits are permitted where no advice has been provided to the client by the individual performing the execution service in the previous year months.
- Amending the conflicted remuneration provisions: Amending the conflicted remuneration provisions to allow for the payment of benefits under a 'balanced' remuneration structure, expand the basic banking exemption to include all simple banking products and permit the payment of performance bonuses that are calculated by reference to remuneration which is exempt from the ban on conflicted remuneration.
- Amend the existing grandfathering provisions: Amending the existing grandfathering provisions to allow advisers to move between licensees and to continue to access grandfathered benefits in certain circumstances.
- Life insurance inside super: The ban on conflicted remuneration will only apply to commissions on risk insurance products inside superannuation in circumstances where no personal financial advice about these products has been provided.
- Broaden training exemption: Broaden the existing training exemption that provides for training in relation to providing financial product advice as a permitted non-monetary benefit, to include other forms of relevant training.
- Amend the drafting of the ban on volume-based shelf-space fees: Clarify that incentive payments between fund managers and platform operators for preferential treatment of certain products on the platform 'shelf' are banned.
- Define intra-fund advice: The definition of intra-fund advice will be referenced in the FOFA provisions.
- Amend the existing stockbroking-related exemptions: Clarify the application of the stamping fee exemption to initial purchasing offer arrangements and clarify the application of the brokerage fee exemption to products traded on the ASX24.
- Minor technical issues: A number of amendments will be made to address technical issues including clarification of the client-pays exemption and consequential amendments to the application of the wholesale and retail client distinction.
According to the Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC), while it will take enforcement action where it sees breaches of the new requirements, its focus during the facilitative period will be on education. ASIC will not take enforcement action in relation to the specific FOFA provisions that the Government is planning to repeal. ASIC will review and consult on its regulatory guides on FOFA once the announced amendments have been made.
Niran Peiris, managing director of Allianz Australia, said in a statement that regulatory fear could create a “systemic threat” for financial services businesses.
“At the industry level globally, regulatory change was the number one risk facing the power/utility sectors and financial services, the latter reflecting increasing supervisory intervention around the globe following the Global Financial Crisis,” Peiris said. ”Regulatory change over recent years, as well as foreshadowed reviews or changes in the areas of financial services regulation and carbon taxation/renewable energy, might also be impacting here.”
For more on financial regulation, check out these articles:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSEC Penalizes Wells Fargo, LPL Financial $900,000 Each for Inaccurate Trading Data
US Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
Pre-Internet High Court Ruling Hobbling Efforts to Keep Tech Giants from Using Below-Cost Pricing to Bury Rivals
6 minute readPreparing for 2025: Anticipated Policy Changes Affecting U.S. Businesses Under the Trump Administration
Trending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250